Attention: Parents of Children with NEC Certain baby formulas have been linked to necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) If your child developed necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) after consuming toxic baby formula, you may qualify for Significant Financial Compensation! Join NEC Baby Formula Claim Today Was your child diagnosed with necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC)? Did your child experience any of the following? Select One * What is your child's year of birth? Year of Birth YYYY Was your child given formula or milk fortifier? Was your child born premature? Do you currently have a lawyer representing your claim? Getting real about toxic baby formula: What you need to know about NEC The joy of parenthood comes with a deep sense of responsibility, especially concerning our little ones' diet and health. Alarmingly, a serious condition known as necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) has been linked to certain baby formulas, creating widespread concern among parents. What is necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC)? NEC is not your average tummy trouble. It is a severe condition that inflames and can severely damage a baby's intestines, mainly in those who are not exclusively breastfed and consume formula derived from cow's milk. The condition is dangerous and can turn life-threatening if not addressed swiftly. Fill out the form on this page for more information. Identifying the baby formulas under scrutiny As a new parent, you’ve likely heard about Similac and Enfamil. But here's something you might not know — these popular baby formulas are made from cow's milk and they could be linked to NEC in babies. This is especially important if your baby was born early. Research, like Frontiers in Pediatrics’ 2022 animal study, shows us that not all formulas are created equal. They can affect your baby's tummy differently. Brands like Enfamil and Similac could have a higher chance of leading to NEC than breast milk does.

Attention: Depo-Provera Brain Tumor Lawsuits are Filing Now! Were you or your loved one diagnosed with a brain tumor after taking Depo-Provera? If so, you may qualify for Significant Financial Compensation! Depo-Provera, a long-acting injectable contraceptive, has been linked to an increased risk of brain tumors in a recent scientific study. Join Claim Today You May Qualify for Compensation Did you or a loved one use Depo-Provera for Birth Control? Were you diagnosed with Meningioma or brain tumors? Were you treated by a doctor for Meningioma or brain tumors? Do you currently have a lawyer representing your claim? If you or a loved one received Depo-Provera injections and were subsequently diagnosed with meningioma or other health complications, you might be eligible for financial compensation. How Can We Help With Your Depo-Provera Case? Depo-Provera, a popular birth control injection, has been linked to an increased risk of meningioma, a type of brain tumor. If you or someone you know developed meningioma or other serious health issues after using Depo-Provera, you may have a legal claim. Let Injury Claims connect you with experienced attorneys who are dedicated to helping those harmed by dangerous drugs and medical devices. We can help you understand your rights and explore your legal options. See if you may qualify for compensation by filling out our simple form above and get access to an immediate and FREE case review! What Is Depo-Provera? Depo-Provera is a hormonal contraceptive administered by injection every three months. It contains medroxyprogesterone acetate, a synthetic progestin that prevents pregnancy by suppressing ovulation and thickening cervical mucus. While generally effective in preventing pregnancy, Depo-Provera has been associated with potential side effects, including: - Bone density loss, - Weight gain, - Irregular bleeding, - Mood changes, - Headaches, and - An increased risk of meningioma.

Vivint and Sunrun solar power PPA fraud class action investigation Class Action Lawsuits | October 31, 2024 Category: Lawsuits to Join Solar scam PPA issues: Who’s affected? Did you sign a power purchase agreement (PPA) with Sunrun or Vivint? California residents may be eligible to take part in an investigation into allegations of deceptive sales and business practices. Fill out the form on this page to learn more. Residential solar company Sunrun, which acquired Vivint Solar in October 2020, is facing allegations it used misleading sales tactics to lock customers into unfair PPAs under false claims they could cancel any time, lower their energy bill, only pay for what they use, transfer to another solar company easily, increase their property value, and more. Many questions are being asked online if PPA leases are a solar scam. These allegedly aggressive and dishonest sales tactics and hard-to-understand PPAs lock consumers into 20-year obligations that are difficult and extremely expensive to escape. These practices may violate California consumer protection laws and, as a result, homeowners could be entitled to compensation or other relief to help get out of their contract. Do you qualify? If you live in California and have a solar PPA (not a solar lease) with Sunrun or Vivint Solar, you may be able to pursue mass arbitration and seek relief. Leave a comment and we will get back to you to see if you qualify. Vivint and Sunrun accused of deceptive sales practices Sunrun and Vivint have allegedly employed high-pressure, dishonest sales strategies and complex financial agreements for more than ten years. These tactics can be excessively harmful to consumers. These two solar panel installation companies offered a power purchase agreement, which locks individuals into a 20-year obligation. The contractual language within the solar PPA can be complex and nuanced, making thorough comprehension challenging for many consumers. Additionally, early termination of the contract may trigger significant financial penalties or obligations for the homeowner. Angy homeowners online suggest that these deceptive practices are a solar scam

Boar's Head Recall Join Now Boar’s Head class action lawsuit overview: - Who: Plaintiff Robby Harper filed a class action lawsuit against Boar’s Head Provisions Co. Inc. - Why: Harper claims Boar’s Head failed to disclose its products were potentially contaminated with listeria-causing bacteria, putting consumers at risk of illness or death. - Where: The Boar’s Head class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new Boar’s Head class action lawsuit alleges the company sold products contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes but failed to disclose this material fact to consumers. Listeria monocytogenes is a type of pathogenic bacteria that can survive freezing temperatures and other food preservation measures, the Boar’s Head lawsuit explains. This type of bacteria causes listeriosis, which is one of the most dangerous foodborne illnesses. Plaintiff Robby Harper claims he purchased multiple Boar’s Head meat sandwiches, including at least one that contained beef salami containing listeria that allegedly caused him to become ill. Harper alleges Boar’s Head failed to properly disclose the risk of listeria contamination associated with a variety of meat products purchased before July 31. The Boar’s Head recall included bacon, bologna, frankfurters, ham and sausage products, the complaint notes. Listeriosis may cause sepsis, meningitis, encephalitis, gastroenteritis and other health issues. Harper claims the disease has a 95% hospitalization rate and 20% fatality rate, making it extremely dangerous. Boar’s Head listeria recall was inadequate to protect consumers, plaintiff says Boar’s Head recalled the meat products on July 25, offering a refund only to consumers who returned the recalled products to the store where they were purchased. “This recall was deliberately designed to preclude the vast majority of consumers from receiving a refund,” Harper claims. He says he did not retain the recalled product and therefore was not eligible for a refund.

Find An Open Class Action Lawsuit | Updated October 2024 Search Open Class Actions Lawsuits and Settlements Claim your Class Action Lawsuit Settlement Before The Claim Deadline! Fontainebleau Data Breach Settlement Was your personal information compromised in the 2022 Fontainebleau data breach? You may be eligible for a settlement payment. Claim Form Deadline: October 31st, 2024 Settlement Amount: $4,000 Jefferson Dental Spam Texts Settlement: $1M Did you receive promotional text messages from Jefferson Dental between May 17, 2019, and May 17, 2023, after making a “STOP” request and listing your number on the National Do-Not-Call Claim Form Deadline: December 9th, 2024 Settlement Amount: $57 Charlotte Tilbury BIPA Settlement: $2.92M Did you use Charlotte Tilbury’s virtual try-on tools while in Illinois between December 1, 2019, and August 31, 2023? You may be eligible for a settlement payment. Claim Form Deadline: January 2nd, 2025 Settlement Amount: $700 - $1,100 Advanced Medical Management Data Breach Settlement: $2.5M Was your personal information compromised in the 2023 Advanced Medical Management data breach? You may be eligible for a settlement payment. Claim Form Deadline: October 31st, 2024 Settlement Amount: $7,500 Self Financial FCCPA Settlement: $500K Did you receive communications from Self Financial between 9 p.m. and 8 a.m. about a consumer account since October 4, 2021, in Florida? You may be eligible for a settlement payment. Claim Form Deadline: October 29th, 2024 Settlement Amount: $50 Allstate Call Recording Settlement: $3.3M Did you receive a call from Allstate’s Claims Liability Determination Unit on your cell phone between February 1, 2022, and December 31, 2022, without consenting to the call being recorded? You may be eligible for a settlement payment. Claim Form Deadline: October 30th, 2024 Settlement Amount: TBD Citibank Unwanted Robocalls Settlement: $29.5M Did you receive an unwanted robocall from Citibank about a past-due credit card account on your cell phone between August 15, 2014, and July 31, 2024, even though you are not a Citibank customer? You may be eligible for a settlement payment.