Thursday, January 21, 2016

LifeLock Reaches $68M Settlement In False Advertising Class Action

LifeLock-logoA California federal judge granted preliminary approval of a $68 million settlement which will end a LifeLock class action lawsuit that alleged the identity theft protection company failed to keep its promise of continuous security.

U.S. District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed off on the LifeLock class action settlement yesterday, stating that the “commonality” requirement was met based on the alleged practices of LifeLock, which is the common issue affecting all six million potential Class Members.

According to the LifeLock class action lawsuit settlement, Class Members include all U.S. residents who purchased a LifeLock identity theft protection plan between Sept. 1, 2010 and Jan. 20, 2016. A subclass was also approved which will include individuals within the U.S. who enrolled in LifeLock’s identity theft protection plan between Jan. 1, 2012 and April 30, 2015.

LifeLock settlement Class Members will receive an estimated $39 if they submit a claim and $20 if they do not. “At a minimum, Class Members are projected to receive on average the amount they paid per month of service, if not slightly more for Subclass Members,” according to court documents.

Lead plaintiffs Napoleon Ebarle and Jeanne Stamm filed the class action lawsuit in January 2015 claiming that LifeLock violated Arizona’s Consumer Fraud Act by falsely advertising the following promises:

  • Comprehensive services in detecting fraud
  • Timely and continuous alerts of potential fraud 24-hours a day, every day of the year
  • Keep customers’ personal data (credit card, social security, and bank account numbers)
    secure
  • A “$1 Million Total Service Guarantee,” which provides insurance up to $1 million against identity theft

The LifeLock false advertising class action lawsuit filed by Ebarle and Stamm contains overlapping claims alleged within an enforcement action filed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) last summer.

According to the FTC, LifeLock falsely advertised that it provided fraud alerts to customers as soon as they became aware of a potential threat between January 2012 and December 2014. In addition, the FTC stated that LifeLock failed to maintain a comprehensive information security program to protect user data, failed to meet record keeping requirements, and falsely advertised its identity theft prevention services during this time frame.

LifeLock agreed to pay $100 million in order to settle the claims with the FTC.

More information about the terms of the LifeLock class action settlement reached by plaintiffs Ebarle and Stamm was not immediately available. Keep checking TopClassActions.com or sign up for our free newsletter for the latest updates. You can also mark this article as a “Favorite” using your free Top Class Actions account to receive notifications when this article is updated.

The plaintiffs are represented by Joseph Henry Bates, III of Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC; RoseMarie Maliekel of Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein LLP; Randall K Pulliam of Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC; and Michael W. Sobol of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

The LifeLock False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit Settlement is Napoleon Ebarle, et al. v. LifeLock Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00258-HSG in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

We tell you about cash you can claim EVERY WEEK! Sign up for our free newsletter.

  • Email*
  • State*
    selectAlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingArmed Forces AmericasArmed Forces EuropeArmed Forces Pacific


jQuery(document).ready(function($){gformInitSpinner( 5, ‘http://11284-presscdn-0-40.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/images/spinner.gif’ );jQuery(‘#gform_ajax_frame_5’).load( function(){var contents = jQuery(this).contents().find(‘*’).html();var is_postback = contents.indexOf(‘GF_AJAX_POSTBACK’) >= 0;if(!is_postback){return;}var form_content = jQuery(this).contents().find(‘#gform_wrapper_5’);var is_confirmation = jQuery(this).contents().find(‘#gform_confirmation_wrapper_5’).length > 0;var is_redirect = contents.indexOf(‘gformRedirect(){‘) >= 0;var is_form = form_content.length > 0 && ! is_redirect && ! is_confirmation;if(is_form){jQuery(‘#gform_wrapper_5’).html(form_content.html());setTimeout( function() { /* delay the scroll by 50 milliseconds to fix a bug in chrome */ jQuery(document).scrollTop(jQuery(‘#gform_wrapper_5’).offset().top); }, 50 );if(window[‘gformInitDatepicker’]) {gformInitDatepicker();}if(window[‘gformInitPriceFields’]) {gformInitPriceFields();}var current_page = jQuery(‘#gform_source_page_number_5’).val();gformInitSpinner( 5, ‘http://11284-presscdn-0-40.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/images/spinner.gif’ );jQuery(document).trigger(‘gform_page_loaded’, [5, current_page]);window[‘gf_submitting_5’] = false;}else if(!is_redirect){var confirmation_content = jQuery(this).contents().find(‘#gforms_confirmation_message_5’).html();if(!confirmation_content){confirmation_content = contents;}setTimeout(function(){jQuery(‘#gform_wrapper_5’).replaceWith(” + confirmation_content + ”);jQuery(document).scrollTop(jQuery(‘#gforms_confirmation_message_5’).offset().top);jQuery(document).trigger(‘gform_confirmation_loaded’, [5]);window[‘gf_submitting_5’] = false;}, 50);}else{jQuery(‘#gform_5’).append(contents);if(window[‘gformRedirect’]) {gformRedirect();}}jQuery(document).trigger(‘gform_post_render’, [5, current_page]);} );} ); if(typeof gf_global == ‘undefined’) var gf_global = {“gf_currency_config”:{“name”:”U.S. Dollar”,”symbol_left”:”$”,”symbol_right”:””,”symbol_padding”:””,”thousand_separator”:”,”,”decimal_separator”:”.”,”decimals”:2},”base_url”:”http:\/\/topclassactions.com\/wp-content\/plugins\/gravityforms”,”number_formats”:[],”spinnerUrl”:”http:\/\/topclassactions.com\/wp-content\/plugins\/gravityforms\/images\/spinner.gif”};jQuery(document).bind(‘gform_post_render’, function(event, formId, currentPage){if(formId == 5) {gformInitChosenFields(‘#input_5_2′,’No results matched’);} } );jQuery(document).bind(‘gform_post_conditional_logic’, function(event, formId, fields, isInit){gformInitChosenFields(‘#input_5_2′,’No results matched’);} ); jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery(document).trigger(‘gform_post_render’, [5, 1]) } );

The post LifeLock Reaches $68M Settlement In False Advertising Class Action appeared first on Top Class Actions.

from http://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/318670-lifelock-reaches-68m-settlement-in-false-advertising-class-action/


No comments:

Post a Comment