Zuffa removed to U.S. District Court for Nevada in Las Vegas a class action filed June 30 in the 8th Judicial District Court in Clark County in which plaintiff Saul Garcia alleges the sports promotion company engages in an unlawful automatic renewal scheme for the Ultimate Fighting Championship Fight Pass streaming subscriptions it sells to consumers in California. Zuffa, which owns 49.9% of UFC, denies Garcia’s claims “have any merit” and disputes that he and his putative class members are entitled to any of the relief sought in the complaint, said its notice of removal Wednesday (docket 2:23-cv-01211). UFC’s majority owner, Endeavor Group, isn't named in the complaint. Garcia, a Los Angeles resident, alleges Zuffa’s conduct violates the California Automatic Renewal Law. Under the statute that took effect in July 2022, businesses that offer automatic renewal agreements or continuous service agreements to California consumers must provide the complete automatic renewal terms “in a clear and conspicuous manner and in visual proximity to the request for consent prior to the purchase,” said Garcia’s complaint. They also must obtain “affirmative consent” to the automatic renewal before charging consumers, it said. They also must give consumers an acknowledgment that includes the automatic renewal agreement's offer terms “that also describes the cancellation policy and explains how to cancel,” it said. Zuffa’s Fight Pass subscriptions “fail to comply with these legal requirements,” it said. Zuffa unlawfully charged Garcia’s credit card “and continues to unlawfully charge California consumers" in violation of the statute’s “core requirements,” it said. The complaint, which also alleges violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, seeks restitution of the amounts unlawfully charged Garcia and members of his class, plus injunctive relief to bar Zuffa from future violations.

Plaintiff Esther Klang and defendant Google filed a stipulation of dismissal (docket 1:23-cv-01316) Tuesday in U.S. District Court for Eastern New York in Brooklyn of a fraud case on advertised charging speed of a Pixel 6 smartphone. Klang asserted in her February lawsuit that Google didn’t disclose that its claim of a phone charging speed of 50% in 30 minutes requires buying its $25 30-watt USB-C charger, asserting violation of the New York General Business Law, multiple states’ consumer fraud acts, breach of warranty and unjust enrichment. In June, the court granted Google’s motion to compel (see 2306080033) the case to arbitration and stay litigation. All claims Klang raised or could have raised in the action are dismissed with prejudice; each party will bear its own legal costs, said the filing.

“We believe the claims alleged by plaintiffs are baseless and will vigorously defend the Company,” emailed an AT&T spokesperson about allegations in Friday’s securities fraud class action that the company lied about the existence of telecom cables covered in toxic lead (see 2307300002). The complaint seeks to recover “compensable damages” caused by AT&T’s alleged violations of federal securities laws on behalf of investors who bought AT&T stock between March 1, 2020, and July 26.

Equifax, Experian and TransUnion credit reporting agencies continue to report fraudulent accounts of Orange County, Florida, resident Rebecca Kineman despite her efforts to have the fraudulent accounts corrected and removed, said a Friday complaint (docket 6:23-cv-01437) in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Orlando. The lawsuit against the three credit reporting agencies, Verizon Wireless and Fair Collections & Outsourcing (FCO) alleges negligence and violation of the Fair Credit Reporting and Fair Debt Collection Practices acts. Kineman is alleged to owe a debt to Verizon for an account she never applied for, said the complaint, saying Verizon furnished inaccurate information about her to the agencies. FCO also furnished inaccurate information about her to the CRAs about an apartment lease she never applied for, it said. Due to the false reports, Kineman was denied a loan she applied for early this year. When she obtained copies of her credit reports in April with fraudulent information, she found the Verizon account in her name had a “closed” and "in collection" status with all the CRAs with a balance of $1,656; the “inaccurate and fraudulent” FCO account was reported by Experian and TransUnion with a status of “collection” and a balance of $59,195, it said. Kineman contacted the CRAs April 20 about the fraudulent accounts, attributing the reports to either a “mixed file or identity theft.” Experian notified Verizon and FCO of Kineman’s dispute but none of the companies did a “reasonable investigation and merely compared their own erroneous data to that provided by Experian in connection with the dispute investigation,” the complaint said. The CRAs never tried to contact Kineman during the investigation and didn’t perform independent investigations, it said. Due to “inaccurate credit reporting,” Kineman lost money and time attempting to fix her credit, experienced a reduction in her credit score and suffered mental anguish, stress, aggravation, embarrassment and “sleepless nights” due to defendants’ “reluctance to fix the errors,” the complaint said. She seeks statutory, compensatory, actual, and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest.

The plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation against Samsung arising from last summer's data breach agreed to amend certain causes of action and to dismiss without prejudice 36 claims from their amended consolidated complaint to "streamline briefing" on Samsung's anticipated motion to dismiss, said a stipulation and order (docket 1:23-md-03055) signed Thursday by U.S. District Judge Christine O’Hearn for New Jersey in Camden. The dismissed claims include those brought on behalf of subclasses for 16 states and the District of Columbia that are currently without individual representation, said the order. The plaintiffs reserve their right to reassert those claims at the class certification stage, it said. Samsung will file its motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint by Aug. 11, and the plaintiffs will file their opposition by Sept. 22, said the order. Samsung's optional reply is due Oct. 20, it said.

Defendant Chargebacks911 and Gary Cardone and Monica Eaton, owners of parent company Global E-Trading, moved the court for leave to reply to the FTC’s opposition to their motion to dismiss, said their unopposed Wednesday motion (docket 8:23-cv-00796) in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Tampa, requesting an opportunity to address allegations raised by the FTC and the state of Florida “for the first time” in their opposition. Plaintiffs “mischaracterize the arguments” in defendants’ amended motion to dismiss with regard to “causation and the need for substantial consumer harm and rely on inapposite case law,” said the motion. Plaintiffs also assert new allegations about defendants’ alleged “scheme” and the “likelihood” of harm to consumers, “seeking to obscure the Complaint’s glaring omission that it does not identify or even allege in non-conclusory fashion that Defendants’ alleged conduct harmed a single customer,” said the motion. Defendants don’t seek to restate arguments in the motion to dismiss but to address the “re-formulated allegations and case law introduced” in the opposition, they said. The April complaint (see 2304130013) alleges Chargebacks911 allowed its clients to run “microtransactions” via prepaid debit cards that artificially lower a merchant’s overall chargeback rate by inflating the total number of transactions running through the merchant’s account, thus lowering the percentage of their charges that were disputed by consumers. Excessive chargebacks are a primary indicator a merchant is engaged in fraudulent, illegal or unauthorized practices; a higher percentage could lead to more scrutiny, the complaint says.

Long Island IT distributor Aqua Systems engaged for nearly four years in a scheme through which it procured heavily discounted products from Hewlett Packard Enterprise “as the result of having made material misrepresentations regarding where and to whom the products would be sold,” alleged HPE in a fraud complaint Wednesday (docket 2:23-cv-05640) in U.S. District Court for Eastern New York in Central Islip. Aqua’s conduct, and that of its purchasing manager Murtuza Tofafarosh, caused certain HPE resellers to breach their contractual obligations and caused HPE to be “financially harmed,” it said. HPE sells its products through large distributors that are contractually bound to sell the goods only to HPE-authorized “partners,” or to independent resellers who agree to resell the HPE products to end users only in certain geographies, it said. Partners are required to buy HPE products only from authorized distributors, and to sell HPE products only to end customers, it said. Partners can request higher than normal discounts from HPE through an initiative called the “Big Deal Program,” said the complaint. HPE alleges Aqua and Tofafarosh conspired with CareTek, an HPE partner, to fraudulently procure hundreds of HPE products with about $875,000 in Big Deal Program discounts by falsely claiming the products would be sold to CareTek’s existing customer, Sentry Investments, it said. Tofafarosh coached CareTek on how to submit false Big Deal Program registrations to HPE, it said. An internal HPE audit found only 46 of the 713 heavily discounted products procured by CareTek for sale to Sentry under the Big Deal Program were actually sold to Sentry, it said. The rest were diverted to Aqua and Tofafarosh for sale to unauthorized entities, including to companies in Germany and Latin America that didn't qualify for access to them, it said.

U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni for Southern New York in Manhattan signed an order Tuesday appointing Kiley Grombacher of Bradley/Grombacher and Brian Murray of Glancy Prongay as co-lead counsel representing the plaintiffs in the two consolidated fraud class actions against AudienceView Ticketing and UniversityTickets.com. Caproni's July 17 order consolidated the cases, both arising from the defendants’ massive data breach. The order designated Jadyn Newman v. Audienceview Ticketing (docket 1:23-cv-03764) as the lead case. The other case is Richard Toledo v. AudienceView Ticketing (docket 1:23-cv-05626).

Plaintiff Elizabeth Steines voluntarily dismissed her fraud claims against Apple, said her notice Tuesday (docket 3:22-cv-03099) in U.S. District Court for Southern Illinois in East St. Louis. Steines’ Dec. 27 class action alleged Apple’s decision not to package a power adapter with series 12 through 14 iPhones is a breach of contract and a breach of implied warranty, and a violation of Illinois consumer fraud laws (see 2212300037).

A 21-month-old Fresno, California, child, LK, was seriously injured after she ingested a button battery that fell out of a wireless color-changing LED light remote control, said a negligence lawsuit Tuesday against Amazon (docket 1:23-cv-01112) in U.S. District Court for Eastern California in Fresno. Plaintiff Joanne Knupp, LK’s mother, said the child experienced “extreme pain and suffering” after swallowing the battery Feb. 16 and the damage was so severe she had to undergo 14 surgeries to remove the battery and address organ damage. The battery, which lodged in and burned through LK’s esophagus, caused a tracheoesophageal fistula, said the complaint, resulting in tissue damage with “prolonged risk of catastrophic bleeding,” it said. LK suffered numerous traumatic diagnostic procedures, sedated CT scans, bronchoscopies, endoscopies and intubations, said the complaint. Her condition has required round-the-clock care, plus a “constant flow of drugs for pain, anxiety, and to reduce enhanced risks of infection,” it said. The wireless remote, for color-changing “fairly lights,” was sold under Amazon’s Homemory brand. LK’s injury “did not need to happen,” and it wouldn't have happened if the product had adequate safety precautions to prevent the remote’s access cover from falling open, and if it had been "manufactured, marketed, and sold in a manner that was safe,” said the complaint. In addition to negligence, the complaint asserts claims of product liability for defective design and manufacturing and failure to warn of a defective condition. It also charged Amazon with breach of implied contract and emotional distress. Plaintiffs seek lost earnings and healthcare expenses; costs of mental anguish and emotional distress; costs for medical care, lodging, travel and incidental expenses; punitive damages and legal costs; and a preliminary and permanent injunction barring Amazon from selling the defective products. It also seeks a product recall.