As the coronavirus pandemic swept across the United States, many universities closed their campuses to students. These actions were an appropriate response to the necessity of social distancing and limiting large gatherings. The result of these actions was that students found themselves in the lurch for the remainder of the spring semester. Most schools transitioned their student bodies to online instruction, hoping to offer a facsimile of the on-campus experience. However, many students have found these offerings lacking when compared to the on-campus experience.
Students, many of whom paid tens of thousands of dollars in tuition and other associated fees, found themselves hoping for a reasonable refund since the schools were no longer providing the services they paid for. Unfortunately, many universities have provided inadequate relief, arguing that the (often hastily assembled) online learning experience has been comparable. Many students find this difficult to accept, particularly those whose fields of study rely heavily on in-person instructions in labs and studios. The same education is simply not possible when done online.
As a result of this failure to provide refunds for tuition and fees, a number of universities (including Loyola University, Carnegie Mellon University, the University of Miami, and Drexel University) have found themselves as named Defendants in class action lawsuits seeking fair and reasonable refunds for the affected students.
If you or someone you know was enrolled in a college or university for on-campus instruction in the Spring 2020 semester and were forced to settle for online education and would like to explore your legal options for getting a refund of tuition and other associated fees, we want to hear from you! Please contact us at email@example.com or by phone at 855-827-2329 for a free, no obligation consultation. Anderson + Wanca is a leading consumer protection law firm and we are here to help ensure that your rights are protected during this challenging time.
Customers may know Tilly’s as a shopping mall staple selling clothes and shoes for a southern California lifestyle. But the chain, with over 200 stores nationwide, got a little too aggressive in trying to recruit new and returning customers and ran afoul of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Tilly’s denies these allegations but still entered into a nationwide settlement that brought direct relief to over 615,000 people who received an unsolicited text message.
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act was initially passed by Congress in 1991, to give consumers legal options to stop the onslaught of telemarketing calls to their household phones. The statute has been amended numerous times and now applies to cell phones and text messages as well.
In November of 2016, class representative Lauren Minniti and over 615,000 other individuals received a text message offering “10% off your entire purchase + promo alerts from TILLYS?” Ms. Minniti filed a class action lawsuit with Anderson+Wanca on behalf of all those who were affected.
After almost a year and a half of litigation, Tilly’s agreed to settle the case. As a result, all 615,000+ class members were able to receive cash payments. “This is an excellent result for consumers and a reminder to people that they have legal rights if they are receiving unsolicited phone calls and text messages,” said attorney Ross Good of Anderson+Wanca.
If you have received an unsolicited spam text or robocall and would like to contact the firm of Anderson+Wanca for a free consultation, click here.
Do you own a bar, restaurant, or other business that was
closed as a result of the coronavirus pandemic AND you filed a claim with your
insurance company for resultant losses AND you had that claim denied? If so, we want to hear from you!
Anderson + Wanca is a law firm fighting to protect the rights of victims of insurer misconduct. We are at the forefront of efforts to recover for those who have been wrongfully undercompensated by insurers. And we are now launching an investigation into whether insurance companies are denying valid claims for losses suffered as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. We can help YOU recover financial compensation that was improperly denied.
As the world has seen heroic responses from first responders in the face of the coronavirus pandemic, one set of “last responders” has perhaps run afoul of the law. Insurance companies often stylize themselves as “financial first responders” and there is no doubt they can play an important role in helping businesses recover from catastrophe. However, some insurance companies may be trying to take unfair advantage of people in these difficult times by underpaying or failing to pay entirely claims for losses suffered during the national emergency.
Several restaurants have filed suit in state courts, alleging that their insurers improperly denied their claims for compensation under the terms of their “business interruption insurance” coverage. Business interruption insurance is a type of insurance that covers the loss of income and expenses that a business suffers after a disastrous event. The covered loss may be due to a closing of the business or due to a rebuilding process after a disaster. With stay at home orders becoming more and more common and numerous state and local governments imposing restrictions that lead to the closure of restaurants and with other businesses deemed to be non-essential, many people are turning to their insurance companies seeking the business interruption coverage that they believe they’ve paid for. It appears that some insurance companies are denying these claims, exacerbating an already difficult situation for the people they agreed to protect.
If you have had a claim denied under your business interruption coverage, you may be entitled to financial compensation. To learn more about how we can help, please contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org for a FREE consultation—no pressure, no hassle, no obligation—just a friendly conversation. We will need to see a copy of your insurance policy and a copy of the denial letter from your insurer. We will review your documents and confer with you to help you determine if you have a claim and address your legal options. Remember, there is never any financial obligation to us on your part. We are paid by the defendant for successfully prosecuted cases and we are on your side!
With advances in voice recognition and machine learning, we see an increasing number of products that implement some form of vocal interaction. Popular ones include Google Home and Amazon Echo, as well as smaller digital assistants such as Apple’s Siri and Microsoft’s Cortana. Recently, companies such as Mattel have developed toys with voice interaction features for children, such as the Hello Barbie doll. However, with increases in artificial intelligence come increases in data collection, and with increases in data collection come increases in privacy concerns.
Parents and privacy advocates alike expressed concern over Hello Barbie’s potential to store records of intimate conversations. Concerns intensified when it was reported that the toy was susceptible to remote hacking through wireless networks. The latest companies under fire are Chinese-based toy manufacturer Genesis Toys and US software tech company Nuance Communications. In December 2016, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), along with the Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood, the Center for Digital Democracy, and the Consumers Union have filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) about legal concerns relating to privacy in two toys, My Friend Cayla and i-Que Intelligent Robot, designed by Genesis with software written by Nuance. The complaint alleges that the companies violate a 1998 law, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), due to deceptive data collection without proper notice or parental consent.
Most Facebook users have encountered a key feature of the social media service when uploading photos: suggested tags based on facial recognition (“Tag Suggestions”). This feature has remained unchallenged until recently, when a class-action lawsuit was filed against the tech giant, claiming that key elements of this feature violate Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), a law enacted in 2008. The law, which was originally drafted by Illinois’ ACLU chapter, states that private entities collecting biometric information (defined as “a retina or iris scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, or scan of hand or face geometry”) must provide public information about their data retention policy as well as guidelines for data destruction. BIPA also prevents companies from selling or trading such information, and requires that they protect such data as they would other confidential or sensitive information.
Des Plaines resident James Gertie has filed a class-action suit against McDonald’s and the local Karis Management company, which owns and operates multiple Chicago-area McDonald’s restaurants. The suit alleges consumer fraud and deceptive practices, claiming that the franchise’s menu contains false advertising.
The class action lawsuit filed against the defunct Trump U alleges, among other ignominious charges, “financial elder abuse.” Controversy surrounding the for-profit “university” enterprise came to a head after the presiding judge ruled for the release of sensitive documents to the public. In them, former employees described ruthless sales tactics the university would use to convince vulnerable sections of the population to sign up for expensive classes with, allegedly, no real educational value. The company claimed to teach students Trump’s strategies for success, and instructors were purportedly “hand-picked” by Trump to teach the students the key to successful investing.
Theranos, a company once hailed as a revolution in modern medicine, has been hit with several class action lawsuits in the past week. The company claimed that state of the art machine named “Edison” would change the world by radically reducing the time and amount of blood necessary for blood tests. Far from the promised game changing innovation however, the lawsuits allege that the company engaged in false advertising and failed to follow proper medical lab procedure, possibly exposing consumers to inaccurate lab results.
Between 2008 and 2009, Wyndham Hotels and Resorts was successfully hacked three times. Rather than the scenario resembling an arms race however, with increasingly proficient hackers up against Wyndham’s increasingly elaborate cyber security, the hackers used similar methods in all three data breaches.
The most recent 2016 LinkedIn data breach is a continuation of the original data breach that occurred in 2012. At the time, LinkedIn’s investigation revealed 6.5 million stolen username and password combinations, and took precautionary measures to re-secure those accounts.
On May 19th however, a Russian hacker with the moniker “Peace” was confirmed to be selling a database of 117 million usernames and passwords from the 2012 data breach, making it clear that the scope of the original incident was far wider than users had been led to be believe.