www-waykayslay-com-duplicate

Subaru FA24D Investigation

Mon, 15 Dec 2025 20:07:57 GMT

The Subaru FA24D Oil Starvation Issue — Why It Matters and How You Can Help Wade Kilpela Slade’s Investigation

Subaru’s FA24D engine — the 2.4-liter naturally aspirated flat-four found in the latest BRZ and Toyota GR86 — has earned praise for its torque, responsiveness, and overall driving character. But over the past few years, a recurring topic within the enthusiast community has cast a shadow over that reputation: oil starvation issues under high-load conditions . What began as scattered reports from track enthusiasts has grown into a pattern that warrants serious attention from owners, tuners, mechanics, and everyday drivers alike.

This blog explains the FA24D oil starvation phenomenon and invites FA24D owners — especially those who track their cars or have diagnostic data — to participate in Wade’s survey. Your responses will help build the most comprehensive picture yet of this issue.

What Is Oil Starvation?

Oil starvation means the engine’s oil pump is momentarily drawing air instead of oil. In an internal combustion engine, continuous lubrication is critical: oil reduces friction, carries heat away, and protects bearings and journals from metal-to-metal contact. If the pump doesn’t have a steady supply of oil — even for fractions of a second — pressure drops and sensitive components can be damaged.

In most engines, the oil pan and pickup are designed to keep oil available even during aggressive driving. But the FA24D’s boxer configuration — with its flat layout and oil pan geometry — can allow oil to “slosh” away from the pickup during hard cornering, aggressive acceleration, or severe braking. This issue is not unique to Subaru — flat engines in general have more complex oil control challenges than inline or V-configured units — but the FA24D has become a focal point because of real reports of pressure loss and resulting failures.

How and Why It Happens

The FA24D’s oiling system has several characteristics that contribute to potential starvation:

Flat Engine Geometry: The horizontally opposed layout means oil can accumulate in the cylinder heads and away from the pan’s pickup, especially during long sustained lateral loads.
Minimal Baffling: The factory oil pan has modest baffling. Under extreme G-forces, oil can slosh out of the pickup’s reach.
High Oil Pump Flow: The FA24D’s pump moves a lot of oil at high RPM, but if the supply isn’t near the pickup, that volume becomes irrelevant.
Oil Pickup Screen Clogging: In a number of documented cases, excess assembly sealant (RTV) used during manufacturing has broken off and lodged in the pickup screen, blocking flow.

These factors can interact. For example, a blocked pickup screen will starve the engine even on the street; significant lateral forces can induce starvation on track; and a combination of both can result in catastrophic bearing failure.

Documented Instances and Community Reports

Over the last few years, owners have reported instances where engines have failed after what seemed like otherwise normal use. In some cases, teardown confirmed blocked oil pickup screens — often clogged with sealant debris — as the culprit. In other instances, data logs from track days showed oil pressure plunging into unsafe territory during sustained cornering.

These reports are not fringe anecdotes; independent shops have encountered multiple blocked pickup cases, and several owners have documented their experiences publicly with videos, photos, and teardown reports. Various online threads, social platforms, and group discussions have built up a body of evidence suggesting that this is not a one-off event.

Why This Matters

If you own a Subaru with the FA24D engine — understanding the oiling behavior of your engine is vital. If certain driving styles or conditions are correlated with oil pressure dips, you should know. If some engines exhibit oil pickup obstruction, owners need to be aware. If OEM oiling provisions are marginal at high loads, solutions — whether aftermarket modifications or factory revisions — must be pursued.

What You Can Do

Your participation matters. Whether you’ve experienced problems, have detailed logs, or just want to contribute to a better understanding of your engine’s behavior, your input strengthens the community’s knowledge base.

Fill out the form if you have had issues with your 2022+ FA24D engine and oil starvation.

Nevada Attorney General files suit against social media app Kik and its parent company

Wed, 19 Nov 2025 21:45:47 GMT

Aug 18, 2025

2 News Nevada Digital Team

Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford has filed a lawsuit against MediaLab.AI and its social messaging app Kik.

The suit cites harm the company has caused to Nevada's youth, according to a release from the Attorney General's Office.

The legal action follows lawsuits from the AG's office against TikTok, Snapchat, and three Meta-owned platforms, Instagram, Facebook, and Messenger, filed in 2024, as well as a lawsuit against YouTube filed earlier this year.

The suit was filed late Friday in the Eighth Judicial District business court.

“Kik’s anonymity feature and low barrier to entry, among other things, harm Nevada’s youth,” said Ford. "The company’s actions and false claims of safety also put Nevada’s children in danger. I will not allow companies to neglect their responsibilities to Nevada’s youth, and I will bring any offender that does so to court.”

Ford’s lawsuit accuses Kik of violating the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act and brings claims of negligence, products liability, and unjust enrichment. It claims the app's "easily created anonymous accounts" have created a haven for child predators and facilitated the dissemination of child sexual assault material.

Two women who allege they were stalked and harassed using AirTags are suing Apple

Wed, 19 Nov 2025 21:42:53 GMT

DECEMBER 7, 20223:31 AM ET

By Ayana Archie

Two women are suing Apple over its AirTags, claiming the trackers made it easier for them to be stalked and harassed.

The women filed a class-action lawsuit Monday in the U.S. Northern District Court of California and said Apple has not done enough to protect the product from being used illicitly.

Apple introduced AirTags in 2021. They retail for $29 and work by connecting to iPhones and iPads via Bluetooth. They have been billed as a close-range alternative to the company's built-in Find My technology, which provides an approximate location.

"What separates the AirTag from any competitor product is its unparalleled accuracy, ease of use (it fits seamlessly into Apple's existing suite of products), and affordability," the lawsuit says. "With a price point of just $29, it has become the weapon of choice of stalkers and abusers."One plaintiff alleges after divorcing her ex-husband, he left an AirTag in her child's backpack. She attempted to disable it, but found another one soon after, she said in the lawsuit.

The other plaintiff, identified as Lauren Hughes, said after ending a three-month relationship with a man, he began calling her from blocked numbers, created fake profiles to follow her social media accounts and left threatening voicemails.

Hughes says she was living in a hotel while planning to move from her apartment for her safety. When she arrived at her hotel, she received an alert that an AirTag was near her. She later located it in the wheel well of one of her back tires. Once Hughes moved to her new neighborhood, the man posted a picture of a taco truck in her vicinity with "#airt2.0," the complaint says.

Apple does send users an alert if an unfamiliar AirTag is located near them. But the notification is not immediate and is only available on devices with iOS software version 14.5 or later, which excludes some older Apple devices. The consequences could be fatal, the complaint alleges.

Soon after the AirTag launched, domestic abuse advocates and technology specialists warned Apple the product could easily be compromised, according to the complaint. "AirTag was designed to help people locate their personal belongings, not to track people or another person's property, and we condemn in the strongest possible terms any malicious use of our products," Apple said in February.

The women are seeking a trial with a jury and no monetary damages.

AirTag enables iPhone users to securely locate and keep track of their valuables using the

Find My app.

Nevada files lawsuit against Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, Snapchat and TikTok: 'Hazard to Public Health'

Wed, 19 Nov 2025 21:20:42 GMT

January 31, 2024 5:59am EST

By Lawrence Richard

Former Facebook engineering director Arturo Bejar argues the government should force social media platforms, like Instagram, to protect children from abuse because they won't do it themselves.

The state of Nevada is suing some of the most popular social media companies, alleging that their apps are intentionally addictive and have contributed to a decline inmental health for its users, especially teens and young adults.

Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford filed civil lawsuits Tuesday against the parent companies of Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, Snapchat and TikTok apps, claiming they are a "hazard to public health" and that they use "false, deceptive and unfair marketing" to directly appeal to youth. The lawsuit also says the respective apps’ algorithms are "designed deliberately to addict young minds and prey on teenagers’ well-understood vulnerabilities."

"All of these platforms use features like endless scrolling, dopamine-inducing rewards,disappearing content, likes, shares, push notifications, and other elements to maximizeyouth use, manipulate young emotions, and exploit children’s developing minds — all formassive financial gain," the attorney general’s office alleged in a news release,announcing the lawsuits. "Each of these platforms has also been linked to seriousdangers to kids, including auto accidents, increases in drug overdoses, suicides, eatingdisorders, sexual exploitation and more."

"My commitment to protecting consumers, particularly those that are as vulnerable asour youth, is unwavering. Bringing this litigation is an important step toward ensuringsocial media platforms put our children’s safety before their profits," Ford, a Democrat,said Tuesday.

Ford alleges in the filing that these apps can potentially be more hazardous to mentalhealth than even some drugs as the apps lack a natural breakpoint where the content runs out.

Ford, alongside private law firms, filed the civil suit in Clark County District Court. At the root of the filing is what is commonly known about these social media apps:companies make money by advertising on the apps, so they utilize aggressive algorithms to capture and keep users on the apps longer, so the companies can make more revenue via the ads.

One result of addictive content is "doom-scrolling," or when users spend more time than intended to see what new content the algorithm provides. These apps often prioritize engaging content, such as short videos, that have produced lots of reactions. This keeps the users in a pattern of gaining quick satisfaction before moving into the next one, and the next one.

Ford alleges in the filing that these apps can potentially be more hazardous to mental health than even some drugs as the apps are ceaseless.

While physical drugs have a natural break point to their usage, the social media apps do not. A user "can spend an infinite amount of their time" on the apps and can become trapped in "a bottomless pit" as the content flows endlessly onto their devices, the lawsuit alleges. This endlessness exacerbates the addiction and its subsequent effectssuch as problematic internet usage, mental health, body image, physical health and online security.

And, children are disproportionately impacted. While the apps each feature age-limits, requiring users to be at least 13 years old orolder, children can easily navigate the apps and create accounts to access the content.

"In effect, the Defendants are conducting a potentially society-altering experiment on a generation of Young Users’ developing brains," the lawsuit alleges. "While this experiment’s full impact may not be realized for decades, the early returns are alarming."

While these popular social media apps each feature age-limits, requiring users to be at least 13 years old or older, children can easily create new accounts.

In a statement to FOX Business, a Meta spokesperson said the lawsuit"mischaracterizes" the work that the company does to ensure users' safety, especially teens. "The complaint mischaracterizes our work using selective quotes and cherry-picked documents," the statement read. "We want teens to have safe, age-appropriate experiences online, and we have over 30 tools to support them and their parents. We’ve spent a decade working on these issues and hiring people who have dedicated their careers to keeping young people safe and supported online."

Earlier this month, Meta announced it would be implementing new protections "that are focused on the types of content teens see on Instagram and Facebook." These changes include "hiding more types of content for teens on Instagram and Facebook, in line with expert guidance," the Facebook-parent company said. "We regularly consult with experts in adolescent development, psychology and mental health to help make our platforms safe and age-appropriate for young people, including improving our understanding of which types of content may be less appropriate for teens." it added.

Snap told FOX Business in a statement that its platform differs from other social media apps in that it does not have a feed that users can scroll. "Snapchat was intentionally designed to be different from traditional social media, with a focus on helping Snapchatters communicate with their close friends," a spokesperson said. "Snapchat opens directly to a camera – rather than a feed of content that encourages passive scrolling – and has no traditional public likes or comments. While we will always have more work to do, we feel good about the role Snapchat plays in helping close friends feel connected, happy and prepared as they face the many challenges of adolescence."

The AG said the new lawsuit was an 'important step toward ensuring social media platforms put our children’s safety before their profits'

Giant Eagle Worker Seeks Initial OK For $669K ERISA Deal

Wed, 19 Nov 2025 20:52:06 GMT

By Matthew Santoni

Law360 (May 30, 2025, 2:59 PM EDT) -- A proposed class of employees at Pennsylvania-based gas and grocery chain Giant Eagle asked a federal court for preliminary approval of an almost $669,000 settlement of their claims that the company overspent their retirement savings on administrative fees.

Proposed lead plaintiff Cheryl Kehrer said that, if approved, the proposed settlement would cover more than 15,000 retirement plan participants and beneficiaries who worked at Giant Eagle and contributed to the plan as far back as August 2018. The settlement would be quicker and less risky to the proposed Employee Retirement Income Security Act class than trying to prove their claims through a trial, Kehrer said in her request for preliminary approval Thursday.

"In this complex ERISA class action, plaintiff would proffer an expert for liability and damages, which defendants undoubtedly would counter with their own proffered expert(s). Ultimately, a battle of experts presenting differing opinions as to the prudence of the conduct of defendants and starkly different views on liability would ensue," the brief in support of preliminary approval said. "… Although a trial on the merits in any case always entails some risk, in the context of ERISA breach of fiduciary duty class actions, the risk is even more considerable as plaintiffs in various cases have been unable to satisfy their burdens of proof in analogous cases."

Thursday's motion sought preliminary approval of the settlement so that potential class members could be contacted.

Kehrer had filed suit in August 2024, claiming Giant Eagle breached its fiduciary obligations to 401(k) plan participants by failing to control administrative and record-keeping costs, wasting the assets of the plan and failing to act in the best interests of the plan participants.

By December, Giant Eagle had filed a motion to dismiss the case and Kehrer had filed a response, but both sides agreed to try mediation before the motion was decided, the brief said.

After a daylong mediation session in February, led by Babst Calland's Mark Shepard, the parties reached the basics of an agreement, which they continued working on and announced in April.

According to the proposal presented for preliminary approval, Muhic Law and Wade Kilpela Slade LLP would request up to one-third of the $668,750 settlement fund as fees and up to $15,000 for costs. Kehrer would seek a $5,000 award as the lead plaintiff.

The brief said the proposed settlement should meet all the requirements for approval, since it was reached after an arm's length negotiation and significant discovery during the pre-complaint and mediation stages.

If the case were to continue, Kehrer acknowledged that Giant Eagle would strongly contest her assertions that the plan's recordkeeping and administrative services, or RKA fees, were unreasonable and consumed millions of dollars unnecessarily.

"Plaintiff's assessment of maximum potential damages to the plan, in a best-case scenario, was approximately three million dollars," the brief said. "… Not only did defendants assert facts to demonstrate a purported prudent process of fiduciary review, defendants challenged the comparators utilized by plaintiff in calculating potential damages, as well as the per-participant RKA fees put forth by plaintiff. While plaintiff was confident in her theory of liability and calculation of potential damages, she acknowledges that defendants would raise a strong challenge to her claims."

The suit would face an additional challenge of convincing the court to stick to the proposed class period, which, if shortened, could further reduce the damages below the amount in the settlement, Kehrer said. Giant Eagle was also looking for new proposals for recordkeeping that could reduce the fees at issue in the case for the future, further complicating the calculation of damages going forward, she said.

"Given the wide range of potential damages, the outcomes at trial, and the uncertainty of proving actual losses to the plan, the monetary settlement is fair and reasonable," the brief said.

Any objections to the settlement or the reaction of proposed class members would have to be assessed after class members are notified, the brief said.

Counsel for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday.

Kehrer and the proposed class are represented by Edwin J. Kilpela and Paige T. Noah of Wade Kilpela Slade LLP and Peter A. Muhic of Muhic Law LLC. Giant Eagle is represented by Emily Byrne, Jeremy P. Blumenfeld, and Stephanie R. Reiss of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

The case is Kehrer v. Giant Eagle Inc. , case number 2:24-cv-01211, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

--Additional reporting by Hailey Konnath.

--Editing by Patrick Reagan.

Ky. AG Sues Temu For 'Stealing' User Data

Wed, 19 Nov 2025 20:52:06 GMT

By Elliot Weld

Law360 (July 21, 2025, 8:04 PM EDT) -- Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman has brought a lawsuit in state court against Chinese bargain-shopping app Temu, accusing it of illegally "stealing" customer data without their knowledge and allowing the Chinese Communist Party to access the information.

In a complaint filed Thursday, the state attorney general's office asserted violations of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act and Kentucky common law, and said it would seek an injunction on data collection.

"Temu's cheap products and flashy marketing hide real danger," Coleman said in a statement Thursday. "Their platform can infect Kentuckians' devices with malware, steal their personal data and send it directly to the Chinese government. At the same time, they're eroding trust in some of Kentucky's most iconic brands, which could lead to job losses and hardship."

According to the court filing, an investigation had revealed "threats to Kentuckians' privacy and security due to code-level behaviors in the Temu app," and that those behaviors were designed to evade detection.The app uses multiple layers of encryption and other processes to shield itself from forensic searches, and it uses code to "sniff out" potential forensic tools, the suit says.

"The app even goes so far as to edit its own code once it has been downloaded to a consumer's phone, potentially allowing it to exploit user's [personal identifiable information] and other data, or to otherwise control the consumer's device, in unknown and unknowable ways," the complaint read.

Furthermore, it collects an "alarming" amount of personal identifiable information that is beyond what is needed for an ordinary online shipping business, the attorney general's office said, adding that Temu can also collect a user's GPS information, lists of other apps installed on a device, and the cellular data and Wi-Fi networks to which the user's phone is connected.

Kentucky alleged Temu acknowledges that part of its operations are located in mainland China, where cybersecurity laws allow the government "unfettered access" to data owned by Chinese businesses. Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers made similar allegations in a suit filed in Nebraska state court last month, saying Temu was unlawfully gathering information from minors and using secretly installed malware on consumer devices.

A spokesperson for Temu said in a statement Monday that Coleman's allegations were unfounded and based on misinformation circulated online. The spokesperson said the company categorically denies the allegations and "will defend ourselves vigorously."

"We understand that as a new company with an innovative supply chain model — one that begins by bringing the global supply chain directly to the end consumer — some may misunderstand us at first glance and not welcome us," according to the statement. "We are here for the long term and are eagerly listening and improving. We believe that scrutiny will ultimately benefit our development. We are confident that our actions and contributions to the community will speak for themselves over time."

The state is represented by Russell Coleman, J. Christian Lewis, Stephen Humphress, and Lyndsey Antos of the Kentucky Attorney General's Office; Brian McMath and Brian Moore of Nachawati Law Group; and David Slade of Wade Kilpela Slade LLP. Counsel information for the company was not immediately available.

The case is Commonwealth of Kentucky v. PDD Holdings Inc. et al ., case number 25-CI-00232 in the Woodford Circuit Court.

--Editing by Covey Son.

Mass. Cannabis Labs Call Rival's Suit 'Publicity Stunt'

Wed, 19 Nov 2025 20:52:06 GMT

By Julie Manganis

Law360 (June 27, 2025, 1:58 PM EDT) -- Seven Massachusetts cannabis testing labs are asking a state court judge to toss a lawsuit brought by a competitor accusing them of manipulating test results, with three of the defendants calling the complaint a "publicity stunt" driven by the plaintiff's declining market share.

Plaintiff MCR Labs LLC, which filed suit in January against eight other testing labs alleging they were misrepresenting potency and contamination results to circumvent state regulations, disputed the claim in an opposition on Wednesday, doubling down on allegations that its competitors have "siphoned" away customers by guaranteeing their products will pass tests.

The defendants, in a series of motions to dismiss, said MCR's claims lack any evidentiary or legal support, urging Suffolk County Superior Court Judge Debra Squires-Lee to toss the claims, which include tortious interference, unjust enrichment, and violation of the state's law against unfair or deceptive business practices.

Judge Squires-Lee has scheduled arguments on the motions for Aug. 27. "The complaint appears to be a thinly veiled publicity stunt designed to extol the virtues of plaintiff's services while casting unsupported and unsupportable aspersions on the majority of its competitors," lawyers for three of the defendants — Analytics Labs LLC, Green Valley Analytics LLC, and Safe Tiva Labs LLC — said in a joint motion to dismiss.

The three labs argued MCR's complaint is being driven by "apparent resentment" over its lost business and that its claims are based on "speculation, unreasonable inferences and conclusory allegations" devoid of any specifics.

Similar arguments have been made on behalf of defendants Kaycha, Green Analytics, Assured Testing, and Massbiolytics in their motions to dismiss the complaint. An eighth defendant, CDX, which has closed, has not filed any motion.

MCR's complaint "lacks a single allegation that any defendant engaged in a specified intentional misrepresentation of test results for any specific customer," Massbiolytics said in its motion filed Wednesday.

The defendants said MCR is not entitled to pursue a claim of unfair or deceptive practices because there has been no commercial transaction between the plaintiff and any of the defendants.

MCR said in its response it believes it has adequately pled its claims at this stage of the proceedings, and that the defendants are making "a premature factual challenge that is inappropriate on a motion to dismiss."

MCR said the unfair or deceptive trade practices clause of the state's consumer protection law does not require it to have engaged directly in a transaction with a competitor to assert an unfair competition claim.

The plaintiffs also said the tortious interference claims are based on actual lost contracts, including one specifically identified in the complaint.

The defendants argued the complaint is improperly filed in Suffolk County, as neither the plaintiff nor any of the defendant labs are located there. MCR said in its response that it brought the case in Suffolk County Superior Court's Business Litigation Session because the specialized division has the resources and experience to handle the claims.

Messages seeking comment from the parties did not immediately receive responses on Friday.

MCR Labs LLC is represented by Patrick J. Sheehan of Whatley Kallas LLP, Edwin Kilpela and David Slade of Wade Kilpela Slade LLP, and Alex Barlo of Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP.

Green Analytics LLC is represented by Kevin Polansky of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP.

Analytics Labs LLC, Green Valley Analytics LLC, and Safe Tiva Labs LLC are represented by Michael D. Roundy and Michael J. McAndrew of Bulkley Richardson & Gelinas LLP.

Massbiolytics is represented by Roger A. Peace of the Peace Law Office.

Kaycha is represented by Joseph D. Lipchitz and Paige V. Schroeder of Saul Ewing LLP.

Assured Testing Laboratories LLC is represented by David B. Mack and Stephanie R. Parker of O'Connor Carnathan & Mack LLC.

The case is MCR Labs LLC v. Analytics Labs LLC et al. , case number 2584CV00260, in the Suffolk County Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

--Editing by Philip Shea

Monster Beverage Fails In Bid To Nix Workers' 401(k) Fee Suit

Wed, 19 Nov 2025 20:52:06 GMT

By Gina Kim

Law360 (May 21, 2025, 6:23 PM EDT)

Monster Beverage cannot escape a proposed class action alleging it allowed its employee 401(k) plan to be saddled with unreasonable recordkeeping costs and took excessive amounts from the plan to pad an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) benefit account, a California federal judge has ruled.

In a brief order Friday, U.S. District Judge John W. Holcomb of the Central District of California denied a motion to dismiss filed by Monster Beverage Corp. and the administrative committee of Monster Energy Co.'s retirement plan against a lawsuit accusing them of violating ERISA and wasting millions of dollars from the fund.

The three named plaintiffs, led by Richard Hollien, filed their first amended complaint in November, alleging the defendants imprudently picked and retained unduly high-cost, low-performing share classes of funds for the retirement plan, harming its participants and beneficiaries.

The Monster employees also accuse the company of charging excessive fees to participants to maintain "an unreasonably large ERISA Benefit Account," which they claim the defendants treated as a "slush fund." The plaintiffs further take issue with recordkeeping and plan administrative services fees paid to recordkeeper Transamerica Retirement Solutions, which was paid a required share of revenue from the plan's funds and the plan participants' accounts, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs argued the required revenue-sharing arrangement is asset-based and calculated on the dollar amount of accounts rather than on a per capita basis. In other words, the more funds invested in the plan, the more recordkeeping fees are paid to Transamerica, even if its services don’t change and no additional work is done to justify the rising costs.

The Monster employees claim the average recordkeeping payment per participant per year was $100, three times larger than what comparable plans pay. Other recordkeepers like Fidelity, Vanguard, and Great-West can provide a high level of service, and in this instance, no unique services were provided to the Monster plan that would warrant higher fees, the plaintiffs claim.

Under Monster's plan, each participant paid an average of $104.52 for recordkeeping, compared with DropBox at $37.77, Pinterest at $21.97, Granite Retirement Savings at $32.97, Verint Systems at $13.36, Destination XL Group at $44.97, and AWG Inc. at $37.99, the suit says.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a proposed class of all participants and beneficiaries of Monster's retirement plan anytime between June 26, 2018, and the date the court enters judgment. Causes of action include violation of ERISA for duty of prudence and failure to monitor other fiduciaries.

In December, Monster moved to dismiss the first amended complaint, saying it made reasonable decisions related to the plan and that plaintiffs lacked standing because they did not allege with specificity that they personally paid excessive fees.

Monster argued that a retirement plan does not breach ERISA simply for paying more than average for recordkeeping. Nor is it an ERISA violation if an entity chooses to pay a portion of a plan’s expenses through a revenue-sharing arrangement, which can reduce overall plan expenses.

Plaintiffs bring no details regarding specific services provided to the plan, services offered in comparable plans, or what other recordkeeping options were available, the motion said. Nor do they provide factual details showing that Transamerica’s services were the same as those provided in allegedly comparable plans, or that those plans also used Transamerica, Monster argued.

“We appreciate Judge Holcomb's careful analysis of the issues and we look forward to vigorously pursuing the plaintiffs' claims through the remaining stages of litigation,” Peter A. Muhic of Muhic Law LLC, one of the attorneys for the proposed class, told Law360 in an emailed statement Wednesday afternoon.

Representatives for Monster did not immediately return inquiries seeking comment Wednesday.

The proposed class is represented by James A. Clark and Renee P. Ortega of Tower Legal Group PC, Peter A. Muhic of Muhic Law LLC, and Edwin J. Kilpela Jr. of Wade Kilpela Slade LLP. The defendants are represented by Ryan M. Sandrock and Marc P. Miles of Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP.

The case is Richard Hollien et al. v. Monster Beverage Corp. et al. , case number 8:24-cv-01467, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

--Editing by Amy French

Nebraska Accuses Temu of ‘Siphoning’ User Data, Fueling IP Theft

Wed, 19 Nov 2025 20:52:06 GMT

By Allison Grande

Law360 (June 12, 2025, 10:29 PM EDT) — Chinese bargain-shopping app Temu is allegedly unlawfully gathering sensitive information from minors and other users through secretly installed malware and allowing intellectual property infringement to thrive on its platform, Nebraska’s attorney general claimed in a sweeping new lawsuit.

In a 92-page complaint filed in Nebraska state court Wednesday, Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers accused Temu and its parent company PDD Holdings Inc. of deceiving state residents and harming brands, businesses, and creators in multiple ways, including unlawfully harvesting data from children and other users, using misleading marketing and design practices to encourage purchases, and failing to stop rampant counterfeits on the platform.

“Temu has flooded the United States with cheap products, but those products come with a one-two punch to Americans,” Hilgers said in the complaint, which alleges violations of Nebraska’s Consumer Protection Act and Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Temu responded by categorically denying the allegations and pledging to vigorously defend itself. “The allegations in the Nebraska attorney general's lawsuit are without merit and appear to be a rehash of misinformation circulated online, much of it originating from a short-seller,” a Temu spokesperson said. The company said it aims to help consumers access affordable products while providing growth opportunities for U.S. small businesses.

The complaint alleges that once a consumer downloads the Temu app, malware is secretly installed that bypasses device security protocols and grants the app unrestricted access to essentially all data on the phone, including photos, private messages, and information to track user movements. Even non-users may have their data collected merely by emailing or texting Temu users. The app reportedly uses sophisticated evasion techniques to make detection of this malware “almost impossible.”

The attorney general further alleges that Temu’s ties to the Chinese Communist Party increase the risk that personal data could be accessed by the Chinese government, due to Chinese laws requiring companies within the country to provide user data upon request. PDD Holdings, founded in China as Pinduoduo Inc., moved its principal executive offices to Dublin, Ireland, in February 2023 but continues significant operations in China.

Beyond data privacy concerns, the complaint claims Temu’s platform enables widespread IP theft, false advertising, misleading labeling, and counterfeit products. Nebraska brands like Union Pacific, Cabela’s, and Creighton Bluejays are allegedly misrepresented as authentic without proper recourse for rights holders. The complaint also points to low-quality or counterfeit goods, some allegedly produced via forced labor, manipulative pricing and incentivized reviews, inadequate return processes, deceptive “local” labeling, and misleading eco-friendly claims.

“Temu is putting Nebraskans’ privacy at risk and running a platform rife with deceptive listings, unlawful promotional practices, and products that rip off Nebraska brands and creations,” Hilgers said. The state seeks a court declaration that these practices are illegal, an injunction preventing further violations, and civil penalties, restitution, and damages to Nebraska residents.

This complaint echoes similar lawsuits filed by Arkansas and New York, targeting Temu for alleged data theft and violations of privacy laws.

Nebraska is represented by Anna M. Anderson, Benjamin Swanson, and Beatrice O. Strnad of the Attorney General’s Office; Brian E. McMath, Brian L. Moore, and Michaela Hohwieler of Nachawati Law Group; and David F. Slade of Wade Kilpela Slade. Counsel information for Temu was not immediately available.

The case is State of Nebraska ex rel. Michael T. Hilgers v. PDD Holdings Inc. f/k/a Pinduoduo Inc. et al., case number D02CI250002002, in the District Court of Lancaster County, Nebraska.

--Additional reporting by Rae Ann Varona and Joyce Hanson. Editing by Emily Kokoll.

Subaru Buyers' Attys Get $7.25M As Windshield Deal OK'd

Wed, 19 Nov 2025 20:52:06 GMT

By Rae Ann Varona

Law360 (April 22, 2025, 4:44 PM EDT) -- A New Jersey federal judge on Monday gave final approval to a settlement between Subaru and a class of nearly 2 million customers in a suit that accused the automaker of selling vehicles with windshields vulnerable to cracks and other breakage, and granted class counsel $7.25 million in attorney fees. U.S. District Judge Christine P. O'Hearn's final approval of the settlement closes litigation lodged more than five years ago against Subaru of America Inc. over windshields placed on several of its vehicle models, including its Forester and Outback SUVs. Judge O'Hearn wrote in a final judgment and order that the deal is "in all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate" and in the "best interests" of the settlement class.

In a separate order, Judge O'Hearn also gave a nod to $7.25 million in attorney fees to the settlement class's three attorneys. She said that the award to class counsel Peter A. Muhic of Muhic Law LLC, Russell D. Paul of Berger Montague PC, and Edwin J. Kilpela Jr. of Wade Kilpela Slade LLP is "fair and reasonable and, in a matter of this level of complexity, consistent with the range of attorneys' fees awarded in this district and in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals."

Expenses reported to the court were also "necessary, reasonable, and proper," she wrote. New Jersey-based Subaru of America Inc., the U.S. arm of Japanese conglomerate Subaru Corp., was first hit with the suit in October 2019, brought by one driver who alleged that the windshield of her new 2018 Subaru Forester suddenly cracked within just a few months of her purchase. More drivers joined the suit, claiming in a consolidated complaint that they wouldn't have bought their Subaru vehicles, or would have paid less for them, had they known about the faulty glass, which they said also interfered with Subaru's "EyeSight" driver assist system.

According to the latest consolidated complaint filed in December 2020, one plaintiff, Jeffrey Barr, was driving a leased 2019 Subaru Forester on the highway with his wife when its windshield "suddenly and inexplicably cracked" despite there not being any vehicles near them or "any roadway obstructions or anomalies" at the time of the crack. The complaint alleged that another driver, Arnold Milstein, had noticed a crack running through the windshield of his new 2020 Subaru Outback "just weeks" after purchasing it.

Subaru allegedly didn't cover a replacement windshield despite his Outback having fewer than 36,000 miles and being within the warranty period, according to the complaint. The drivers asserted in the complaint that even replacement windows Subaru provided, which the drivers allegedly paid for, suffered from the "same defect" and were thus "equally defective and dangerous."

U.S. Magistrate Judge Matthew J. Skahill gave an initial OK on the settlement in October, citing multiple in-person mediation sessions and substantial discovery, including more than 16,000 pages of documents, written interrogatory responses, subpoenas to third parties, and depositions of the parties' representatives. The settlement, which the parties reached in April 2024, covers 2019 through 2022 models of Subaru's Ascent and Forester vehicles, and 2020 through 2022 models of its Legacy and Outback vehicles.

Under the settlement, Subaru, without admitting liability or wrongdoing, agreed to cover 100% or more of out-of-pocket losses. According to a redacted version of the settlement, the deal allows settlement class members who provide sufficient proof of repair and a photograph of a "qualifying crack" on the windshield before it was repaired to collect 125% of the cost of one prior repair, 150% of the costs if the vehicle required two prior repairs, and 200% of the costs if the vehicle required three or more repairs.

Settlement class members who have proof of repair but don't have photographic proof of a windshield crack may still get monetary recovery through the completion of a photo questionnaire, the settlement states.

Representative plaintiffs Barr, Milstein, Allan Zaback, and Brittany Funk will also receive $5,000 as service awards. Paul of Berger Montague told Law360 on Tuesday that they are "pleased that the court approved the settlement and praised its innovative elements and the excellent recovery achieved for the 1.9 million class members." Counsel for Subaru did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Tuesday.

The class is represented by Peter A. Muhic of Muhic Law LLC, Russell D. Paul of Berger Montague PC, and Edwin J. Kilpela Jr. of Wade Kilpela Slade LLP. Subaru of America Inc. and Subaru Corp. are represented by Neal D. Walters of Ballard Spahr LLP.

The case is Christine Powell et al. v. Subaru of America Inc. et al. , case number 1:19-cv-19114, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

--Additional reporting by Gina Kim and George Woolston. Editing by Jay Jackson Jr.

Temu Is A 'Data-Theft' Biz And Not Marketplace, Ark. AG Says

Wed, 19 Nov 2025 20:52:06 GMT

By Rae Ann Varona

Law360 (June 25, 2024, 10:44 PM EDT) -- App-based online shopping platform Temu is in reality "dangerous malware" that can override phone privacy settings and collect sensitive user information, according to a "first-of-its-kind" state lawsuit by Arkansas alleging deceptive trade practices and privacy violations.

In a 51-page complaint filed in state court, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin says the Temu app is purposely designed to sneak into its users' phone operating systems, gaining access to users' cameras, microphones, contacts and real-time location with an accuracy of at least 10 feet. Even those who don't sign up for the platform risk having their data collected just by emailing or texting Temu users, Griffin said.

"Temu not only seeks a breathtaking array of sensitive data — well beyond what would be necessary or even justifiable for a shopping app — but it does so in a way that is purposely secretive and intentionally designed to avoid detection," Griffin said in the complaint. The lawsuit targets Boston-based WhaleCo Inc., which according to the complaint does business as Temu, and its Ireland-based owner, PDD Holdings Inc. Griffin said in a statement that his lawsuit is the "first-of-its-kind" state suit against the companies alleging violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Arkansas Personal Information Protection Act.

Temu, he said, "is not an online marketplace like Amazon or Walmart" but a "data-theft business that sells goods online as a means to an end." In the complaint, Griffin said that PDD Holdings, formerly known as Pinduoduo Inc., was founded in 2015 in China by a former Google employee but moved its principal executive offices from Shanghai to Dublin in February 2023. He said that ever since PDD Holdings and WhaleCo launched Temu in 2022, the shopping application and website's popularity has skyrocketed in the U.S., partly due to an "aggressive" multibillion-dollar marketing campaign, which included advertisements aired during the 2024 Super Bowl.

Temu was also the most downloaded app in the U.S. in 2023 and had users spending nearly double the amount of time browsing its products than on Amazon, Griffin said. But the shopping platform is "more than an e-commerce juggernaut," the lawsuit asserts, noting that Apple temporarily suspended Temu from its app store last year for misrepresentations concerning the type of data the platform accesses or collects from users.

The state of Montana also recently banned Temu and other apps tied to China in the name of national security, the suit states. There was also a letter the House Committee on Energy and Commerce sent to WhaleCo in December seeking information concerning Temu's data collection practices. The lawsuit said the Temu app was designed to get unrestricted access to users' phones, including by checking a user's device for "root" access, or a device's highest level of access. Griffin said that with root access, the Temu app can "theoretically control or even disable" a device and have "file writing permissions without the user's knowledge or consent."

Griffin alleged that the Temu app tries to hide its behaviors so that it can secretively access sensitive personally identifiable information, or PII. The app sometimes, for instance, nudges users to provide their "precise" location versus their approximate location without explaining why it needs the data, he said. "Location data, either standing alone, or combined with other information, exposes deeply private and personal information about Temu users' health, religion, politics, and intimate relationships," Griffin said.

When it comes to allegations that Temu utilizes deceptive trade practices, Griffin said the platform uses "wildly successful" tactics to induce users to sign up, like pop-ups with wheels to spin for discounts, tokens and countdown clocks. He says Temu also offers credits and free items to users who get their friends to sign up. It also uses online influencers to lure in new users "on an even larger scale," he said.

Temu's representations as to the quality of the products it sells are also deceptive, Griffin alleges, noting that the Better Business Bureau alone has received hundreds of complaints in the past year, resulting in Temu getting a 2.1 out of 5-star rating. The lawsuit, which seeks injunctive relief and civil penalties, also asks the court to declare the companies were unjustly enriched, stating that the companies have realized billions of dollars in revenues and profits through harvesting, using and monetizing the personally identifiable information of Arkansas residents.

A Temu spokesperson told Law360 on Wednesday that they are "surprised and disappointed" that Griffin's office filed the lawsuit "without any independent fact-finding." "The allegations in the lawsuit are based on misinformation circulated online, primarily from a short-seller, and are totally unfounded," the spokesperson said. "We categorically deny the allegations and will vigorously defend ourselves." The spokesperson said that they are also "committed to the long-term and believe that scrutiny will ultimately benefit our development."

PDD Holdings did not respond to a request for comment. Arkansas is represented by Tim Griffin, Charles J. Harder, Matthew M. Ford and Brittany Edwards of the Arkansas Attorney General's Office, Philip D. Carlson, Brian E. McMath and Brian L. Moore of Nachawati Law Group, and David F. Slade of Wade Kilpela Slade. Counsel information for PDD Holdings and WhaleCo was not immediately available.

The case is State of Arkansas v. PDD Holdings Inc. et al. , in the Cleburne County Circuit Court.

--Additional reporting by Allison Grande. Editing by Michael Watanabe.

Update: This story has been updated to add a comment from Temu.

Tile, Stalking Victims Asked To Weigh In On Appellate Ruling

Wed, 19 Nov 2025 20:52:06 GMT

By Bonnie Eslinger

Law360 (August 27, 2024, 10:40 PM EDT) -- A San Francisco federal judge mulling tracking device manufacturer Tile Inc.'s bid to arbitrate some claims that its Bluetooth trackers are dangerous because they empower stalkers asked the parties at a hearing Tuesday to brief her on the effect of a recent California appellate court decision regarding arbitrability.

U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin made the request at the end of a hearing in San Francisco over Tile's motion to send to arbitration claims from two of the putative class action's four plaintiffs, arguing the women signed terms of service agreements that dictate that's how disputes related to the product would be handled, with even questions about arbitrability sent to the arbitrator. The suit claims that Tile and its partnership with Amazon has resulted in a "dangerous" product, with the companies failing to enact safeguards to prevent stalkers from using the quarter-size tracker to prey on victims.

Tile's lawyer, Jeffrey M. Gutkin of Cooley LLP, argued that there was a "clear and unmistakable" delegation of arbitrability in the agreements presented to the two plaintiffs. Judge Lin asked how that fit with the U.S. Supreme Court's directive in its 2010 decision in Rent-A-Center v. Jackson that the "clear and unmistakable" requirement is to be interpreted based on the party's expectations. That "would seem to incorporate a component of looking at the party's sophistication," the judge said, seemingly referring to the plaintiffs' assertion that the agreement to arbitrate is unconscionably broad and confusing.

Gutkin said that shouldn't be a concern in the case before Judge Lin. "It doesn't matter if the parties have a different expectation, if the contract makes a clear and unmistakable delegation," Gutkin said. The contract also incorporated American Arbitration Association rules, which also delegate questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, he added. Gutkin also underscored that in 2017 a different California federal judge overseeing McLellan v. Fitbit sent that dispute to arbitration after finding the consumers couldn't claim they lacked the sophistication to understand the contract.

Judge Lin agreed that the McLellan case articulates why "the clear and unmistakable analysis shouldn't depend on the sophistication of the parties," but said she was struggling with whether the plaintiffs understood that arbitrability would be delegated to the arbitrator. The judge also asked whether she needed to consider California contract law principles in determining arbitrability. Gutkin said the same conclusion would be reached under state law principles.

Judge Lin also asked the lawyer about a 2023 California Court of Appeal decision in Gostev v. Skillz Platform, a consumer case finding questions of arbitrability shouldn't have gone to an arbitrator. In that case, a consumer dispute against a mobile app company, the court looked at whether the incorporation of AAA rules can be seen as evidence of the party's intent to arbitrate, she said.

"It seems like they're the first ones to confront this issue in the consumer context," Judge Lin said. Gutkin said he was unfamiliar with the case, but the weight of case law says the arbitration agreement would be binding. A lawyer for the plaintiffs, Lucy Holifield of Wade Kilpela Slade, said the agreements also leave open the door for a court to determine the validity of the arbitration provision.

The agreement "says that the exclusive jurisdiction for all disputes relating to terms is with the state and federal courts in this district," Holifield said. Further, the incorporation "by reference" of the AAA rules is problematic, she said. "Under California law, an extrinsic document may only be incorporated by reference if the reference itself is clear and unequivocal and if the terms are known and easily available," Holifield said.

At the end of Tuesday's hearing, Judge Lin didn't reach a decision but asked the parties for supplemental briefing on Gostev, specifically whether state law applies in terms of evaluating whether a contract meets the "clear and unmistakable" bar.

Tile's motion to compel arbitration applies to two plaintiffs, Melissa Broad and a woman identified only as "Jane Doe." The company also seeks to stay claims against two other women, Stephanie Ireland-Gordy and Shannon Ireland-Gordy. In their written filing of opposition, the plaintiffs also argue that Broad and Doe's claims are outside the scope of any arbitration clause because they relate to third-party use of the Tile products.

Tile's trackers have been around since 2013 and the company joined forces with Amazon in 2021. Under the partnership, Tile has taken advantage of Amazon's nationwide location-tracking program, Sidewalk, by tapping into Bluetooth networks created by Amazon's home device, Echo. First filed in August 2023, the complaint asserts claims of negligence, design defects, unjust enrichment, intrusion, and violations of California's constitutional right to privacy and Invasion of Privacy Act.

Tile allows its customers to sync the tracker to a smartphone app where they can easily locate its whereabouts. While Tile introduced an anti-stalking feature in 2022, victims are still exposed, the suit said.

For example, the plaintiffs claim that only users with the Tile app installed on their phones can scan for trackers, and the user must manually trigger the detection feature. And then, in February 2023, Tile started allowing users to turn off the anti-stalking feature if they provided a government ID, the plaintiffs said.

The plaintiffs are represented by Gillian L. Wade, Sara D. Avila and Marc A. Castaneda of Milstein Jackson Fairchild & Wade LLP, Brandon Haubert and Jessica Hall of WHLaw and David Slade and Lucy L. Holifield of Wade Kilpela Slade. Tile is represented by Travis LeBlanc, Jeffrey M. Gutkin, Max A. Bernstein and Amanda A. Main of Cooley LLP. Amazon.com is represented by Charles Christian Sipos of Perkins Coie LLP.

The case is Shannon Ireland-Gordy et al. v. Tile Inc. et al. , case number 3:23-cv-04119, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

--Editing by Jay Jackson Jr.

Yacht Maker's Arbitration Clause Struck In Warranty Fight

Wed, 19 Nov 2025 20:52:06 GMT

By Joyce Hanson

Law360 (June 2, 2025, 10:28 PM EDT) -- A Delaware judge has declined to send to arbitration a proposed class action accusing a French yacht maker's American subsidiary of violating U.S. consumer protection law by requiring buyers to have their boats periodically serviced at the company's dealerships.

Delaware Superior Court Judge Sheldon K. Rennie on Friday denied Beneteau Group America Inc.'s motion to compel arbitration in a suit alleging violations by the subsidiary and its parent, Beneteau SA, of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, a federal consumer protection statute.

In a 41-page opinion, Judge Rennie said he had decided to take a "head-on" look at the issue of the Federal Trade Commission's prohibition against binding arbitration under the act. The judge noted that consumers Phil and Melodee Bartel asserted the arbitration clause in their warranty is prohibited by the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, arguing the FTC has determined that an informal dispute settlement procedure provided in a warranty under the act cannot be legally binding.

However, Beneteau Group America had countered that the arbitration clause is enforceable, according to the judge. The subsidiary pointed to case law rejecting the FTC's interpretation based on a pro-arbitration presumption created by the Federal Arbitration Act, and BGA cited the 1987 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahon to support its argument. With that in mind, Judge Rennie said the high court, since McMahon, has been "reluctant" to find that a statute contains sufficiently clear congressional intent to preclude enforcement of arbitration agreements.

"But the U.S. Supreme Court has not applied this test to assay the FTC's prohibition against binding arbitration under the MMWA, nor have any Delaware courts taken up the challenge directly," the judge said. " Decisions by lower federal courts and other state courts that addressed this issue are split. Thus, this court will address the issue head-on."

Judge Rennie found that Congress' intent in the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is clear, and the arbitration clause in question is precluded under a so-called McMahon test. Congress intended an informal dispute settlement mechanism to be nonbinding under the act, the judge ruled. He found that the MMWA's legislative history bolsters his belief because a House report on the act stated that an adverse decision in any informal dispute settlement procedure would not be a bar to civil action.

The judge's opinion also considered how some courts have concluded that the FTC's prohibition of binding informal dispute settlement mechanisms is based on "hostility" or "skepticism" toward arbitration that contravenes federal policy favoring arbitration.

But Judge Rennie disagreed. "Notably, the FTC's rule does not contemplate a blanket ban of arbitration. Indeed, both the statute and the FTC's rules encourage the use of IDSMs, including arbitration proceedings, as long as they meet the minimum requirements promulgated by the FTC and are not legally binding," the judge said.

The FTC's rules say parties are free to enter into an agreement to arbitrate a claim under the act after a dispute arises, according to Judge Rennie. "The FTC's rule only prohibits binding arbitration where it is incorporated into the terms of a written warranty, which puts it under the reign of the IDSM provision," he said. In the Beneteau case, Judge Rennie granted the defendants motion to dismiss the proposed class plaintiffs claims against the parent company. He found the parent company is not a warrantor for the Bartels' boat purchase. He also granted American subsidiary BGA's motion to dismiss consumer Brian Lovett's claims, finding the warranty wasn't covered because Lovett obtained it in a transaction abroad.

BGA is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. In the putative class action, the plaintiffs allege the warranties of the boat manufacturer and its subsidiary violate the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act because the companies say the warranties are valid only if customers use authorized service centers and pay for mandatory inspections. This requirement constitutes an illegal "tying" provision, according to the plaintiffs, who claim they suffered economic damages and loss of enjoyment due to excessive delays, hidden fees and diminished resale value of their warranted boats.

Counsel for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday. Lovett and the Bartels are represented by Dashiell "Dash" R. Radosti of Equal Justice Solutions, and Edwin J. Kilpela Jr., James M. LaMarca and Raymond Collins Kilgore of Wade Kilpela Slade LLP. The Beneteau defendants are represented by Matthew B. Goeller, Michael J. Vail and David Osipovich of K&L Gates LLP, and Jeffrey D. Smith, Raechel T.X. Conyers and Anna C. Transit of Honigman LLP.

The case is Brian Lovett et al. v. Beneteau Group America Inc. , case number n24c-09-266, in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware.

--Editing by Drashti Mehta.

Giant Eagle Agrees To Settle Ex-Worker's ERISA Suit

Thu, 30 Oct 2025 23:04:12 GMT

By Hailey Konnath

Law360 (April 14, 2025, 8:45 PM EDT) -- Grocery store chain Giant Eagle Inc. has reached a settlement with a former employee resolving a proposed Employee Retirement Income Security Act class action accusing the company of wasting millions of dollars of retirement plan participants' funds, according to a notice filed Monday.

Giant Eagle and plaintiff Cheryl Kehrer reached the deal during mediation in February, they said in the notice lodged jointly in Pennsylvania federal court. Since then, they have been working to draft the settlement agreement, which isn't yet finished given the "length and complexity of the settlement agreement and exhibits," they said.

"The parties anticipate that they will be able to finalize and execute their class action settlement agreement within the next 30 days," they said.

Kehrer filed suit in August 2024, claiming Giant Eagle breached its fiduciary obligations to 401(k) plan participants by failing to control administrative and record-keeping costs, wasting the assets of the plan and failing to act in the best interests of the plan participants.

"Defendants' actions were contrary to the actions of a reasonable fiduciary and resulted in the plan and its participants losing many millions of dollars," Kehrer said.

According to the complaint, the plan had roughly 8,260 participants with account balances when it made its most recent disclosure in October 2023. At that time, it reported about $658.8 million in assets.

Kehrer, who lives in Pennsylvania, said she and other participants have been subjected to "excessive costs and fees" resulting in financial losses. She was hoping to represent a class of all participants in the plan between August 2018 and today.

"Had defendants complied with their fiduciary obligations, the plan and plan participants would not have suffered these losses, and plan participants would have had more money available to them for their retirement," Kehrer said in the complaint.

Giant Eagle describes itself as a "food, fuel and pharmacy retailer" with more than 470 locations in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Maryland, and Indiana, according to its website.

Counsel for Kehrer declined to comment Monday. A representative for Giant Eagle didn't immediately respond to request for comment.

Kehrer is represented by Peter A. Muhic of Muhic Law LLC and Edwin J. Kilpela Jr. and Paige T. Noah of Wade Kilpela Slade LLP. Giant Eagle is represented by Jeremy P. Blumenfeld, Emily C. Byrne, and Stephanie R. Reiss of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

The case is Cheryl Kehrer v. Giant Eagle Inc. et al. , case number 2:24-cv-01211, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

--Editing by Stephen Berg

EarnIn's Fees, Tips Are Usurious, Ga. Consumers Say

Thu, 30 Oct 2025 19:15:12 GMT

By Emilie Ruscoe

Law360 (August 5, 2024, 8:14 PM EDT) -- Pay advance app EarnIn has been hit with a proposed class action alleging its optional fees and tips are hidden interest payments that, on average, far exceed fair rates for consumer lending. In a complaint filed Friday in San Jose federal court, EarnIn customers Brennan Orubo, Michael Sims, Demetrice Mathis, and Cidney Lett say the bank violated Georgia's Payday Loan Act and the federal Truth In Lending Act with financial offerings that come at "an unbelievably high cost" for consumers, characterizing expedited deposit fees and tips the company receives from customers as interest EarnIn received for lending to them and calculating that its fees, "on average, yield [annual percentage rates] of 284%."

"EarnIn's users are far more likely to have costs that yield triple-digit APRs deducted from their accounts than users of traditional payday lenders, which means EarnIn's users are far more likely to have their paychecks eroded, and be unable to improve their financial situation, than users of traditional payday loans," the consumers claim.

The California-based EarnIn provides small loans to consumers and describes itself as free to use. It advertises that customers can request to borrow up to $100 a day and as much as $750 during a customer's pay period.

The suit states that consumers seeking to use the service must "verify" that they have an employer that pays out earnings on a scheduled basis, such as in a biweekly paycheck. The app must also be linked to the bank accounts where customers receive their paychecks and have access to customers' account transaction records, the suit says. When EarnIn detects a paycheck has posted to the customers' bank accounts, it automatically debits the sum of the funds the customer borrowed during the pay period, according to the suit.

The consumers say EarnIn's standard payouts take a few days to land in their bank account, but users can opt to receive an expedited deposit within minutes if they agree to pay EarnIn a "lightning speed fee" when they get their next paycheck.

The suit also points to the company's practice of requesting a "tip" before their advance goes through. If customers don't want the company to auto debit a tip out of their bank accounts when they get paid, they have to manually select a zero-dollar tip, the consumers say.

The consumers' suit takes aim at the company's use of the term tip, widely used to refer to a voluntary payment made on top of the charged cost for certain services. "Instead, tips serve as a profit center for EarnIn — a highly capitalized company backed by venture capitalists and institutional investors — and they are solely intended to compensate EarnIn for lending money," the suit states.

The complaint cites recent examples of EarnIn customer borrowing costs from the plaintiffs' personal experience, such as when one of the plaintiffs borrowed $100, to be repaid in 10 days or less, and paid a $3.99 expedited deposit fee. That fee represents an APR of over 145%, the plaintiffs claim.

The suit seeks certification of the putative class of EarnIn borrowers in Georgia, repayment of the class members' loan principal and triple any fees or tips they paid over the past 20 years. They also seek a finding that the company's loans are void and an order barring the company from seeking any more payments from harmed consumers.

Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday. Orubo, Sims, Mathis, and Lett are represented by Gillian L. Wade, Sara D. Avila, Marc A. Castaneda, and Kristin K. Graham of Wade Kilpela Slade LLP and Kevin Tucker and Kevin Abramowicz of East End Trial Group LLC. Counsel information for the defendants was not immediately available Monday.

The case is Orubo et al. v. Activehours Inc. , case number 5:24-cv-04702, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

--Editing by Drashti Mehta

Cannabis Test Lab Says Competitors Fudging Results

Thu, 30 Oct 2025 19:14:49 GMT

By Julie Manganis

Law360 (January 31, 2025, 4:36 PM EST) -- A Massachusetts cannabis testing lab accused eight of its competitors of intentionally inflating results for potency and concealing findings of contamination in order to lure away customers, according to a lawsuit filed in state court.

MCR Labs LLC, which opened in 2013 shortly after the state legalized medical cannabis, said in the complaint filed Thursday in Suffolk County Superior Court that its business has suffered "severely" from the practice of "lab shopping," as current and potential customers "are drawn away by labs willing to provide biased results that reflect higher but inaccurate THC levels and ignore safety failures."

MCR's complaint names competitors Analytics Labs LLC and Green Valley Analytics in Holyoke, Assured Testing Laboratories LLC in Tyngsboro, CDX Analytics in Salem, Green Analytics Massachusetts (formerly Steep Hill) in Framingham, Kaycha MA LLC in Wellesley, Massbiolytics Corp in Dracut, and Safe Tiva Labs in Leverett.

It alleges unfair and deceptive practices, interference in business relationships, and unjust enrichment. In addition to damages, the complaint asks for an injunction barring the defendants from providing falsified results.

Massachusetts, which legalized recreational cannabis in 2016, has regulations in place requiring growers to have their products tested to confirm potency and identify potential contaminants before they can be sold to retailers. MCR said the defendant labs have both overstated the levels of THC, the psychoactive compound in cannabis, and underreported or ignored the presence of contaminants including mold, yeast, pesticides, and lead.

Besides harming MCR and other labs that do not engage in such practices, the defendants are also harming consumers and creating a "significant public health risk," MCR said in the complaint. "This race-to-the-bottom willingness to manipulate testing also results in unknowing consumers overpaying for lower-potency cannabis riddled with dangerous contaminants," MCR said. "Given the rampant corruption of compliance testing, neither consumers nor dispensaries could be expected to know which products on the shelf may be unlawfully contaminated or have misleading potency claims."

MCR said it has lost "dozens" of customers who, also faced with competitive pressure, have been enticed to send their products to the defendant labs. The complaint includes examples, based on reports to state regulatory body the Cannabis Control Commission, of large spikes in the reported THC content of products after MCR customers switched to new test labs.

One lab, which the complaint said "has been one of the most notorious inflators of total THC potency," acquired a former MCR customer in January 2024. That cultivator immediately saw a 46.3% jump in potency test results. Another former MCR customer saw a 43.7% jump after switching to one of the defendant labs, the complaint said.

"This increase cannot be achieved without result manipulation," according to MCR Labs, which said it obtained the information from the Cannabis Control Commission through a public records request and the commission's website. Similar jumps were reported for other labs, the complaint said. At the same time the labs are inflating THC claims, they're underreporting contaminants, citing a Wall Street Journal analysis that showed "a disproportionate share" of samples reported to be just under the legal threshold for sale.

MCR goes on to cite examples of labs that reported low failure rates for contaminants, including one that faced scrutiny after a customer saw mold on a product tested there, had it tested at another lab, and then shared the results on social media. Shortly after that, lab's rate of samples testing positive for contaminants "skyrocketed," and it shut down soon after, the complaint said.

Counsel for MCR declined to comment beyond the pleadings Friday. Green Valley Analytics CEO Jonathan Ferguson declined to comment Friday. The other defendants did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday.

MCR is represented by Patrick J. Sheehan of Whatley Kallas LLP, Gillian L. Wade, Collins Kilgore, Edwin J. Kilpela Jr., and David Slade of Wade Kilpela Slade LLP, and Alex Barlow of Scott + Scott Attorneys at Law LLP. Counsel information for the defendants was not immediately available Friday.

The case is MCR Labs LLC v. Analytics Labs LLC, et al. , case number 2584CV00260, in the Suffolk County Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

--Editing by Stephen Berg

Apple's Air Tag Is Stalkers' 'Weapon Of Choice,' Victims Say

Thu, 30 Oct 2025 19:07:58 GMT

By Rae Ann Varona

Law360 (March 21, 2025, 8:02 PM EDT)

A San Francisco federal judge on Friday allowed stalking victims to proceed with a proposed class action alleging that Apple Inc.'s AirTag devices have become a “weapon of choice” for abusers. The plaintiffs, a group of women who said they were secretly tracked by stalkers using the devices, argued that Apple failed to provide adequate safeguards to prevent such misuse, despite designing the AirTag for locating lost items.

U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria said the victims’ claims, which include allegations of negligence, invasion of privacy, and violations of California’s consumer protection laws, could move forward, rejecting Apple’s attempt to compel arbitration based on the terms of service. Judge Chhabria noted that the plaintiffs were not the original purchasers of the AirTags and therefore did not have a direct contractual relationship with Apple that would bind them to arbitration.

The complaint detailed instances where AirTags were planted on victims’ vehicles, homes, and personal belongings, often without their knowledge. Plaintiffs reported learning about the tracking months later, sometimes after experiencing harassment, break-ins, or other safety threats. The suit claims Apple’s tracking notifications are insufficiently fast and fail to alert non-iPhone users promptly, leaving victims vulnerable.

Apple has previously stated that AirTags were designed with anti-stalking protections, including audible alerts when an unknown AirTag moves with a person and iPhone notifications. The company emphasized that AirTags are intended to track personal items, not people, and has pointed to built-in privacy features to minimize misuse.

The proposed class action seeks damages for the victims and enhancements to AirTag safety, including more timely alerts and improved mechanisms to prevent unauthorized pairing. Advocates have called on Apple and other technology companies to implement stronger safeguards and clearer guidance for consumers regarding tracking risks.

Plaintiffs are represented by Jennifer S. Bennett of The Law Offices of Jennifer S. Bennett, and Apple is represented by Marc M. Seltzer, Brian M. Willen, and Matthew A. Brinckerhoff of Susman Godfrey LLP.

The case is Jane Doe v. Apple Inc. , case number 3:23-cv-04788, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Calif. Pot Co. Accused Of 'Lab Shopping' To Skirt Safety Rule

Thu, 30 Oct 2025 19:07:53 GMT

By Jonathan Capriel

Law360 (June 25, 2024, 4:57 PM EDT) -- A California marijuana cultivator has been accused of selling cannabis products with unacceptable levels of contaminants, getting around state requirements by seeking out laboratories that turned a "blind eye" to its crops' impurities, according to a proposed class action.

The complaint names nearly two dozen West Coast Cure and Phire-branded products that were allegedly tainted with pesticides and fungicides, often several times above the state's allowable legal limit, the proposed class action filed in Orange County Superior Court claims. Shield Management Group LLC, the company that owns the brands, allegedly sought out cannabis testing facilities that would intentionally manipulate the results so the crop would not be thrown out, a scheme that's become widespread in the industry, the June 15 lawsuit claims.

"Sadly, now that the practice of lab shopping, and by extension burying safety fails, has become widespread, there is no end in sight, and no place for honest brokers in the marketplace, absent external intervention," the complaint said. "Neither consumers nor even dispensaries could be expected to know which products on the shelf disguise contamination, and which do not (consumers and dispensaries are not laboratories, after all). But the consequence of this fact poses an existential threat for the health of consumers in California."

The suit seeks to represent a class of California consumers who bought the West Coast Cure and Phire products, seeking damages under a number of state business laws and other claims such as breach of express warranty, negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.

According to the complaint, at least 21 West Coast Cure and two Phire products are tainted with chemicals or fungus that the state identifies as contaminants, according to independent testing. All but one of the 23 products listed in the complaint contained Chlorfenapyr, which the state's Department of Cannabis Control classifies as a Category I pesticide, meaning it is not safe for human consumption. If it is detected at any level during laboratory testing, the cannabis batch is considered to have failed the pesticide test.

Many of the products contained Category II contaminants, which are acceptable to have at certain levels. One such product, a THC-infused vape pen called Apple Burst, contained 231 times the allowable legal limit of fungicide Trifloxystrobin, the suit said.

Shield Management sought to conceal "failing grades" it knew its cannabis would receive by seeking out laboratories that would certify their crop was unadulterated, according to the suit. The company did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The lead plaintiff, Kayla Esmond, is represented by Alex Barlow and Kyle Dingman of Scott + Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, and Edwin J. Kilpela Jr., David Slade, Sara D. Avila, Marc A. Castaneda, and James LaMarca of Wade Kilpela Slade LLP. Counsel information for Shield Management wasn't immediately available.

The case is Kayla Esmond vs. Shield Management Group , case number 2024-01407758, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange.

--Editing by Nicole Bleier

Apple Faces Class Cert. Bid Over AirTag StalkingRisks

Thu, 30 Oct 2025 04:46:08 GMT

By Gina Kim

Law360 (June 10, 2025, 6:19 PM EDT) -- Victims stalked by abusers of Apple's AirTag asked a California federal judge to certify their proposed class action, arguing their negligence and product liability claims can be adjudicated in one fell swoop since they rest on the same question of whether the tag's design unreasonably put them at risk of harm.

In a 39-page motion filed June 6, plaintiffs who accuse Apple Inc. of defectively designing its AirTag in a way that put them at risk of being tracked without their consent argue that class certification is appropriate as the challenged conduct impacted all iOS and non-iOS users alike who were tracked via the AirTags. This includes non-iOS users who downloaded Apple's Tracker Detect app for Android.

"All class representatives allege a common pattern of wrongdoing: Apple's negligent design, marketing and release of a product that unreasonably endangered users, along with its resulting breach of legal duties," the plaintiffs say. "Each representative will rely on the same legal theories and common body of evidence to prove their claims, the claims of the class, and to seek identical relief — namely, injunctive relief in the form of business practice changes regarding AirTags and their safety features."

The accusations in the suit are critical to the plaintiffs' liability theories behind the negligence, product liability and California Unfair Competition Law claims throughout the classes, the plaintiffs say. These issues can be resolved on a class-wide basis, even for non-iOS users, with a single common question: whether the design, marketing and launch of the AirTags unreasonably placed the plaintiffs at risk of stalking; whether the misuse of the device was foreseeable by Apple; and whether Apple violated its duty to implement sufficient guardrails to the device, the motion says.

"First, Apple failed to protect non-iOS users from AirTag stalking for over two years by providing no automated alerts," the motion says. "Its only solution, the Tracker Detect app, was released eight months after the AirTag, required manual scans and offered no background detection, leaving the non-iOS users (nearly half of U.S. mobile users) vulnerable."

The motion continues, "Apple delayed collaborating with Google until mid-2023, asserted patent rights that could deter broader safety efforts, and prioritized battery life and control over user safety despite having the ability to implement background scanning earlier."

Furthermore, among iOS and non-iOS users alike, every plaintiff in the proposed classes was affected by the device's sound alert feature, which is too quiet, indistinct and can be easily muffled, especially in loud environments, the motion states.

Misusers could also disable the sound alert feature, the plaintiffs note, adding that the device doesn't help victims locate it, especially if they're hearing impaired or can't discern what exactly the sound alert means. The varying degrees in the seriousness, scope or manifestation of the plaintiffs' emotional distress also doesn't matter, the plaintiffs argue. They also argue it's immaterial that the class representatives suffered different economic injuries. One of the named plaintiffs had to move back to Ireland, sell her car at a loss and leave her career in the United States because of the abuse stemming from the AirTag, while another plaintiff had to move twice, according to the motion.

However, those issues don't defeat the notion that the claims are typical among the classes, the plaintiffs say, because the case rests on Apple's actions and liability theories rather than the particular injuries affecting the victims.

Friday's certification bid is the latest development in a lawsuit the plaintiffs first filed in December 2022, claiming the AirTag has become the "weapon of choice" for stalkers to track their victims, but that hasn't stopped the tech giant from touting the device as "stalker-proof" while ignoring concerns of people at risk of abuse.

The AirTag, which is small enough to be slipped into a purse or hidden in a vehicle, emits signals that can be picked up via Bluetooth and sent to the tag's owner.

In their Friday motion, the plaintiffs point out that California law applies to all the class members' claims, as Apple's software agreement binds them to it. This includes Android users who downloaded Apple's Tracker Detect application, which contains California choice-of-law provisions.

California also has significant contacts with the plaintiffs' claims because the AirTag's key designers are based here, and the alleged misconduct originated here, the motion adds, noting that Apple is based in California and the AirTag was designed in the state. Apple also made business decisions related to the device's design and commercialization in California, the motion adds.

A plaintiff's state of residence — whether it's California or some other state — doesn't matter either; what matters is that Apple's alleged conduct related to the AirTag, which gave rise to the suit's claims, occurred in California, the plaintiffs argue.

"It was Apple's conduct in California that enabled plaintiffs and class members — resident and nonresident alike — to be stalked in their home states or in any other state or country where they traveled," the motion says. "In point of fact, the 'last event' occurs in perpetuity in California, because Apple's ongoing acts and omissions in refraining to make improvements in its software, hardware and firmware to prevent and disable unwanted tracking means that its unlawful conduct continues to this day — long after the acts of any stalker."

A hearing on the certification bid is set for Sept. 4.

"We're honored to seek to represent all of the victims of AirTag stalking across the country," plaintiffs' co-counsel Gillian L. Wade of Wade Kilpela Slade LLP told Law360 in an emailed statement Tuesday afternoon. "Our clients — whose chilling and often heartbreaking experiences are just a sample of the lives that have been upended by Apple — are committed to fighting this battle on behalf of every victim, and we're deeply grateful to them for their bravery and their perseverance."

Representatives for Apple did not immediately respond to requests for comment Tuesday.

The plaintiffs are represented by Wade Kilpela Slade LLP and Milstein Jackson Fairchild & Wade LLP. Apple is represented by Morrison Foerster LLP.

The case is Lauren Hughes et al. v. Apple Inc. , case number 3:22-cv-07668, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

--Editing by Kristen Becker.

www-waykayslay-com-duplicate

Subaru FA24D Investigation

What Is Oil Starvation?

How and Why It Happens

Documented Instances and Community Reports

Why This Matters

What You Can Do

Nevada Attorney General files suit against social media app Kik and its parent company

Two women who allege they were stalked and harassed using AirTags are suing Apple

AirTag enables iPhone users to securely locate and keep track of their valuables using the

Find My app.

Nevada files lawsuit against Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, Snapchat and TikTok: 'Hazard to Public Health'

The AG said the new lawsuit was an 'important step toward ensuring social media platforms put our children’s safety before their profits' ﻿

Giant Eagle Worker Seeks Initial OK For $669K ERISA Deal

Ky. AG Sues Temu For 'Stealing' User Data

Mass. Cannabis Labs Call Rival's Suit 'Publicity Stunt'

Monster Beverage Fails In Bid To Nix Workers' 401(k) Fee Suit

Nebraska Accuses Temu of ‘Siphoning’ User Data, Fueling IP Theft

Subaru Buyers' Attys Get $7.25M As Windshield Deal OK'd

Temu Is A 'Data-Theft' Biz And Not Marketplace, Ark. AG Says

Tile, Stalking Victims Asked To Weigh In On Appellate Ruling

Yacht Maker's Arbitration Clause Struck In Warranty Fight

Giant Eagle Agrees To Settle Ex-Worker's ERISA Suit

EarnIn's Fees, Tips Are Usurious, Ga. Consumers Say

Cannabis Test Lab Says Competitors Fudging Results

Apple's Air Tag Is Stalkers' 'Weapon Of Choice,' Victims Say

Calif. Pot Co. Accused Of 'Lab Shopping' To Skirt Safety Rule

Apple Faces Class Cert. Bid Over AirTag StalkingRisks

The AG said the new lawsuit was an 'important step toward ensuring social media platforms put our children’s safety before their profits'