Apr 1, 2020 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Tandem Diabetes Care Submits Data Breach Notification to California Attorney General
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making consumers aware that Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. (“Tandem Diabetes”) submitted a data breach notification to the California Attorney General. According to the data breach notification:
On January 17, 2020, [Tandem Diabetes] learned than an unauthorized person gained access to a Tandem employee’s email account through a security incident commonly known as “phishing.” Once [Tandem Diabetes] learned about the incident, [Tandem Diabetes] immediately secured the account and a cyber security firm was engaged to assist in [the] investigation. [The] investigation determined that a limited number of Tandem employee email accounts may have been accessed by an unauthorized user between January 17, 2020 and January 20, 2020.
Through the investigation, [Tandem Diabetes] learned that [one’s] name was contained within one or more of the Tandem email accounts affected by the incident. The affected email accounts may have also contained [one’s] contact information, [one’s] Social Security number, information related to [one’s] use of Tandem’s products or services, and/or clinical data regarding [one’s] diabetes therapy. [Emphasis added.]
Have You Been Impacted by A Data Breach?
If so, please either contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], complete the form on the right or e-mail [email protected] for a free, no-obligation case evaluation of your facts to determine whether your privacy rights have been violated and whether there is a basis for a data privacy class action.
Examples of the type of relief sought by data privacy class actions, include, but are not limited to, reimbursement of identity theft losses and of out-of-pocket costs paid by data breach victims for protective measures such as credit monitoring services, credit reports, and credit freezes; compensation for time spent responding to the breach; imposition of credit monitoring services and identity theft insurance, paid for by the defendant company; and improvements to the defendant company’s data security systems.
Data privacy class actions are brought on a contingent-fee basis; thus, plaintiffs and the class members do not pay out-of-pocket attorney’s fees or litigation costs. Subject to court approval, attorney’s fees and litigation costs are derived from the recovery obtained for the class.
Apr 1, 2020 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. Is Making Consumers Aware of Recent Class Action Lawsuits Alleging Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
Lighthouse Insurance Group, LLC
Class action filed in United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, against Lighthouse Insurance Group, LLC. According to the complaint, Lighthouse Insurance Group “repeatedly makes unsolicited autodialed phone calls to consumers’ telephones including cellular telephones all without any prior express consent to make such calls.” The Plaintiffs, allegedly, received unsolicited calls from (252) 388-8025, (252) 562-9338, and (513) 348-1282.
Albertsons Companies, Inc., d/b/a Vons Pharmacy
Class action filed in United States District Court, Southern District of California, against Albertsons Companies, Inc., d/b/a Vons Pharmacy and other defendants, as of yet unknown. The Plaintiff, allegedly, was contacted on her cell phone without her “prior express consent” by Albertsons Companies, d/b/a Vons Pharmacy, “in an effort to sell or solicit [Defendant’s] services.”
Good Chemistry I, LLC
Class action filed in United States District Court for the District of Colorado against Good Chemistry I, LLC. According to the complaint, Good Chemistry I sent unsolicited telemarketing text messages to the cellular telephones of consumers. The Plaintiff, allegedly, “participates in Good Chemistry’s Loyalty Program. However, Plaintiff has never provided his prior express consent to Good Chemistry to receive text messages soliciting him to purchase its products and services.” The Plaintiff, according to the complaint, received the following text messages from Good Chemistry I:
On or around March 16, 2020, at 4:27 p.m., Plaintiff received an unsolicited text message to his cellular telephone from Good Chemistry from the telephone number (202) 866-2757, which read, “Take advantage of online ordering at Good Chemistry for express, in-store pickup. Click the link below to start your order. Reply STOP WS54 to cancel https://ash3.co/gC4XbnZZkc08”.
On March 18, 2020, at 11:09 a.m., Plaintiff received another unsolicited text message to his cellular telephone from Good Chemistry from the telephone number (202) 866-2757, which read, “Personal reservations and online ordering are now available at Good Chemistry for express shopping at all locations. Click the link below to learn more. Reply STOP WS54 to cancel https://y6jk.co/gC6jkeMrth62”.
Later, on March 18, 2020, at 5:33 p.m., Plaintiff received yet another unsolicited text message to his cellular telephone from Good Chemistry from the telephone number (202) 866-2757, which read, “Starting 3/19 updated Good Chemistry hours + other steps we are taking to provide you the fastest, easiest and healthiest access. Click the link below to learn more. Reply STOP WS54 to cancel https://y6jk.co/gC6yjoKWWnS9”.
A1 Diabetes & Medical Supply, Inc.
Class action filed in United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee against A1 Diabetes & Medical Supply, Inc. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff’s cell phone received autodialed calls, voicemails, and text messages from telephone numbers (620) 951-5146, (901) 472-2903, (888) 996-0469, (501) 764-3117, (855) 953-0080, (855) 950-0809, (855) 943-0589, and (855) 964-0793. The Plaintiff, allegedly, never gave his cell phone number to the Defendant, was contacted despite Plaintiff’s request for calls to stop, and did not give consent for A1 Diabetes to call him.
Credit One Bank, N.A.
Class action filed in United States District Court, District of Nevada, against Credit One Bank, N.A. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff “[a]s early as February 10, 2020 . . . began receiving pre-recorded, artificial voice phone calls from [Capital One Bank] on Plaintiff’s cellular telephone, soliciting Plaintiff to open a new credit card with [Capital One Bank].” The calls to Plaintiff continued, despite Plaintiff’s alleged attempts to opt out of receiving unsolicited calls from Capital One Bank.
Palmer Administrative Services, Inc.
Class action filed in United States District Court, District of New Jersey, against Palmer Administrative Services, Inc. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff never provided prior express consent to contact her cell phone or her cellular telephone number to Palmer Administrative Services or any of its agents or contractors. The calls Plaintiff received were, allegedly, made in an effort “to solicit Plaintiff and other members of the alleged Class to purchase the auto warranty agreements that Palmer sells, administers, and is a party to.”
Creditors Relief, LLC
Class action filed in United States District Court, District of New Jersey, against Creditors Relief, LLC. According to the complaint, “[i]n or around March 2017, Plaintiff . . . began receiving prerecorded telemarketing calls from Defendant Creditors Relief.” The Plaintiff received calls from telephone number (302) 219-9678, “all placed for the purpose of soliciting [Plaintiff] to purchase Creditors Relief’s debt restructuring services.” Another Plaintiff, allegedly, received calls from Creditors Relief from telephone numbers (737) 702-9272, (424) 213-6470, (747) 223-8773, (760) 304-1136, and (626) 538-2569. According to the complaint, “[a]ll of the calls solicited Plaintiff . . . to purchase Creditors Relief’s debt resolution services.”
Party City Holdings, Inc.
Class action lawsuit filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, against Party City Holdings, Inc. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff’s cell phone received automated unsolicited marketing text messages from 94467 without Plaintiff’s prior express written consent.
Fluent, Inc. and Reward Zone USA, LLC
Class action filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, against Fluent, Inc. and Reward Zone USA, LLC. According to the complaint, one of the
[Plaintiffs] received a text message from Defendants on December 7, 2019, from the number identified on his caller ID as 657-360-4652. The unsolicited robotext stated: “Congrats Brian! Your code 7SR-K9M2 printed on your last receipt is among 7 we randomly picked for $1,000 Walmart gift card promotion c6rzc.info/lg6RF72BTV87.”
[Plaintiff] replied ‘Stop.’
Defendants sent the unsolicited robotext to [Plaintiff’s] cellular telephone for the purpose of sending [Plaintiff] spam advertisements and promotional offers, via text messages, like those described above.
According to the complaint,
[o]n December 24, 2019, at 9:09 a.m., [another Plaintiff] received an unsolicited robotext message from Defendants from the number identified on her caller ID as 951-391-2478. This unsolicited message stated: “Congrats WAYNE L! Your code R5Z-M9T8 printed on your last receipt is among 7 we randomly picked for $1,000 Walmart gift card promotion n1xrn.info/A9lcOJ4mtGyC.”
Since December 24, 2019 until the present, Defendants have continued to send [Plaintiff] spam advertisements and promotional offers, via unsolicited text messages.
[Plaintiff] received an unsolicited robotext from Defendants purporting to be from Amazon, stating: “FINAL NOTICE: WAYNE L, please review your address details for shipment ID: 7S86J3 HERE: l8cr.xyz/M5GpXbsJCe Sender: AMAZON.”
. . . [Plaintiff] never consented to receive phone calls or text messages from Defendants.
Elavon, Inc. and 7231911 Canada Inc., d/b/a Digitech Payments
Class action filed in United States District Court, Central District of California, against Elavon, Inc. and 7231911 Canada Inc., d/b/a Digitech Payments. According to the complaint, “[t]he Plaintiff received an automated telemarketing call from Digitech Payments on behalf of Elavon on February 12, 2020” from (778) 819-0300.
Do You Believe You Are a Victim of Illegal Robocalls, Text Messages, “Junk” Faxes or Telemarketing Sales Calls?
If you have received illegal robocalls, text messages, “junk” faxes or telemarketing sales calls, you may be able to recover at least $500 for each illegal call, text or fax you received and, possibly, as much as $1,500 for each illegal call, text message or facsimile that was made either willfully or knowingly in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
To help evaluate your potential legal claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, please complete KLF’s confidential Robocall Questionnaire or, if you prefer to speak with an attorney, please complete the form above on the right, e-mail [email protected] or contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., [email protected], (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, for a free, no-obligation evaluation of your potential legal rights.
Mar 31, 2020 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. Is Making Consumers Aware of Recent Class Action Lawsuits Alleging Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
Firmfinder LLC
Class action lawsuit filed on March 30, 2020 against Firmfinder LLC in United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
Allegedly, Defendant [Firmfinder] called Plaintiff in 2019 and 2020 from telephone number (954) 518-3298. According to the complaint, telephone number (954) 518-3298 is
a number which upon information and belief was ‘spoofed’ and was not in service. In other words, Defendant [Firmfinder] used technology to change the phone number it used to call Plaintiff so that the number would appear on Plaintiff’s Caller ID as a local 954 area code number. The spoofing of telephone numbers is also consistent with Defendant’s use of an ATDS, as computer software was used to manipulate the way that the call appeared on Plaintiff’s Call[er] ID.
Upon information and belief, the purpose of Defendant’s phone calls was marketing and solicitation.
Schooladvisor, LLC, d/b/a Degreesearch.org
Class action lawsuit filed on March 26, 2020 against Schooladvisor, LLC, d/b/a Degreesearch.org, in United States District Court, Eastern District of California.
According to the complaint, “[i]n an effort to boost DegreeSearch’s business, Defendant utilized bulk text messaging to reach consumers.” According to the complaint, the Plaintiff received the following unsolicited text messages to his cell phone from Schooladvisor, LLC, d/b/a Degreesearch.org:
On February 2, 2020, at 10:23 AM, Plaintiff received an unsolicited text message to his cellphone from Defendant using SMS shortcode 397-96, which read, “$6,195 in school grant $$ could be available if you qualify! View Schools: http://www2.schoolwe.com/r/1ogp9ha0j (CPG, reply stop to remove)”.
On February 10, 2020, at 10:28 AM, Plaintiff received a similar text message from the same shortcode 397-96, which read, “Edwardo, did you get a chance to explore your class options? View matches here – http://www2.schoolwe.com/r/1ow74bt0m (DS, reply stop to remove)”.
On February 13, 2020, at 8:42 AM, Plaintiff received another text message from the same shortcode 397-96, which read, “Get matched to a school in seconds! $6,195 per year to those who qualify. http://www2.schoolwe.com/r/1rheg0r0e (DS, reply stop to remove)”.
On February 14, 2020, at 12:11 PM Plaintiff received a text message from the short code 397-96, which was identical to the February 13th text message. The text message read, “Get matched to a school in seconds! $6,195 per year to those who qualify. http://www2.schoolwe.com/r/1rheg0r0e (DS, reply stop to remove)”.
According to the complaint, the “Plaintiff does not have a relationship with DegreeSearch, never provided his telephone number to DegreeSearch, and never requested that DegreeSearch send text messages to him or offer him its services in any way.”
Do You Believe You Are a Victim of Illegal Robocalls, Text Messages, “Junk” Faxes or Telemarketing Sales Calls?
If you have received illegal robocalls, text messages, “junk” faxes or telemarketing sales calls, you may be able to recover at least $500 for each illegal call, text or fax you received and, possibly, as much as $1,500 for each illegal call, text message or facsimile that was made either willfully or knowingly in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
To help evaluate your potential legal claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, please complete KLF’s confidential Robocall Questionnaire or, if you prefer to speak with an attorney, please complete the form above on the right, e-mail [email protected] or contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., [email protected], (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, for a free, no-obligation evaluation of your potential legal rights.
Mar 31, 2020 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Fraudsters and The COVID-19 Pandemic – “Scammers are scuttling out of their dark corners to offer false hope”
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making consumers aware that the FTC has provided additional cautionary guidance for individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic regarding “scammers [that] are scuttling out of their dark corners to offer false hope (Home test kits! A cure!) and use fear (Your Social Security number is about to be revoked! Your loved one is in trouble!) – all to get your money or information. (None of those things are real, by the way.) “
The FTC cautions that scammers are: asking for your bank routing number to “help” you get your relief money; sending fake emails that look real, but fake CDC or World Health Organization emails are trying to steal your personal information – or, if you click a link, put malware on your computer, tablet, or phone; as well as repeatedly making illegal robocalls to pitch the latest scam, in addition to texting.
The FTC has provided a few ways individuals can help protect themselves and others from scammers:
- Don’t be rushed. Whatever the call, email, text, or social media post is about, remember that scammers try to rush you. Legitimate people do not.
- Check it out. Before you act on something or share it, stop and conduct some research to make sure the facts back up the story.
- Pass it on. If you get offered something great, or if you are worried about something alarming, talk to someone you trust before you act.
- Keep in touch with the FTC. Sign up for Consumer Alerts to help spot scams: ftc.gov/subscribe. And watch for the latest at ftc.gov/coronavirus.
- Report scams to the FTC. Go to ftc.gov/complaint. Reports can help the FTC shut down scammers.
Source: Federal Trade Commission – FTC.gov
Mar 31, 2020 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Upwards of 5.2 Million Guests Will Be Notified of Marriott International Data Incident
Businesstraveller.com reported (“Marriott announces possible data breach“) that “Marriott will . . . notify up to 5.2 million guests of a possible data breach via email.”
Marriott International Notifies Guests of Property System Incident
Marriott International’s March 30, 2020 “property system incident” notification stated that Marriott International “is notifying some its guests today of an incident involving a property system.” The incident notification also, among other things, stated the following:
Hotels operated and franchised under Marriott’s brands use an application to help provide services to guests at hotels. At the end of February 2020, the company identified that an unexpected amount of guest information may have been accessed using the login credentials of two employees at a franchise property. The company believes that this activity started in mid-January 2020. Upon discovery, the company confirmed that the login credentials were disabled, immediately began an investigation, implemented heightened monitoring, and arranged resources to inform and assist guests. Marriott also notified relevant authorities and is supporting their investigations.
Although Marriott’s investigation is ongoing, the company currently has no reason to believe that the information involved included Marriott Bonvoy account passwords or PINs, payment card information, passport information, national IDs, or driver’s license numbers.
At this point, the company believes that the following information may have been involved for up to approximately 5.2 million guests, although not all of this information was present for every guest involved:
- contact details (e.g., name, mailing address, email address, and phone number)
- loyalty account information (e.g., account number and points balance, but not passwords)
- additional personal details (e.g., company, gender, and birthday day and month)
- partnerships and affiliations (e.g., linked airline loyalty programs and numbers)
- preferences (e.g., stay/room preferences and language preference)
[Emphasis added.]
Have You Been Impacted by A Data Breach?
If so, please either contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. Partner Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], complete the form on the right or e-mail [email protected] for a free, no-obligation case evaluation of your facts to determine whether your privacy rights have been violated and whether there is a basis for a data privacy class action.
Examples of the type of relief sought by data privacy class actions, include, but are not limited to, reimbursement of identity theft losses and of out-of-pocket costs paid by data breach victims for protective measures such as credit monitoring services, credit reports, and credit freezes; compensation for time spent responding to the breach; imposition of credit monitoring services and identity theft insurance, paid for by the defendant company; and improvements to the defendant company’s data security systems.
Data privacy class actions are brought on a contingent-fee basis; thus, plaintiffs and the class members do not pay out-of-pocket attorney’s fees or litigation costs. Subject to court approval, attorney’s fees and litigation costs are derived from the recovery obtained for the class.
Mar 30, 2020 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Fitness International, LLC d/b/a LA Fitness – Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act Alleged
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making consumers aware that a class action lawsuit was filed against Fitness International, LLC, d/b/a LA Fitness, in United States District Court, Central District of California, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, Fitness International, LLC, d/b/a LA Fitness, sent the following unsolicited text message to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone from (480) 400-3803:
Do You Believe You Are a Victim of Illegal Robocalls, Text Messages, “Junk” Faxes or Telemarketing Sales Calls?
If you have received illegal robocalls, text messages, “junk” faxes or telemarketing sales calls, you may be able to recover at least $500 for each illegal call, text or fax you received and, possibly, as much as $1,500 for each illegal call, text message or facsimile that was made either willfully or knowingly in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
To help evaluate your potential legal claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, please complete KLF’s confidential Robocall Questionnaire or, if you prefer to speak with an attorney, please complete the form above on the right, e-mail [email protected] or contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., [email protected], (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, for a free, no-obligation evaluation of your potential legal rights.
