Postmates, 1-800 Contacts, other settlement checks on the way

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Top Class Actions readers received settlement checks in the mail worth up to $2,500, resolving a number of legal cases.

California Postmates couriers class action rebates

Checks are in the mail from a $32 million class action settlement resolving claims that Postmates misclassified its California couriers as independent contractors.

The settlement benefits individuals who used Postmates as an independent contractor delivery driver and accepted or completed at least one delivery in California between June 3, 2017, and Jan. 1, 2021.

Plaintiffs in the wage-and-hour class action lawsuits accused Postmates of intentionally misclassifying California couriers in order to deny them the employee benefits guaranteed under state law. As a result of this misclassification, Postmates couriers were allegedly denied minimum wage, overtime wages, and more.

Postmates agreed to resolve these claims with a $32 million class action settlement. Under the terms of the deal, class members could receive a share of the settlement fund based on the number of miles they drove completing Postmates deliveries in California. One reader reported receiving a payment of $56.03.

In order to receive settlement payments, class members had to submit a valid claim form by Nov. 2, 2021.

The California Postmates class action lawsuits are Rimler, et al. v. Postmates Inc., Case No. CGC-18-567868, and Postmates Classification Cases, Case No. CJC-20-005068, both in the San Francisco Superior Court.

1-800 Contacts settlement checks

A second distribution has been sent to consumers from a $40 million class action settlement with contact providers such as Vision Direct and 1-800 Contacts.

The settlement benefits consumers who purchased contact lenses online from 1-800 Contacts between Jan. 1, 2004, and Sept. 12, 2019; from Vision Direct Inc., Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc., or Walgreen Co. between Jan. 1, 2004, and Sept. 12, 2019; from Arlington Contact Lens Service Inc. or National Vision Inc. between March 10, 2010, and Sept. 19, 2017; and/or from Luxottica of America Inc. between Dec. 23, 2013, and July 5, 2019.

According to the class action lawsuit, the contact distributors entered into anti-competitive agreements in which they wouldn’t compete with each other for online advertising. As a result of this alleged scheme, consumers were allegedly unable to easily compare deals for online contacts — resulting in them overpaying for contact lenses.

The contact suppliers agreed to pay a combined $40 million to resolve these allegations. The first round of payments from this settlement was distributed in September 2021. Now Top Class Actions readers report receiving a second round of payments.

In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must have submitted a valid claim form by Dec. 4, 2020.

The Contacts Class Action Lawsuit is Thompson, et al. v. 1-800 Contacts Inc., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-01183, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah.

Plaid data breach class action rebates

Checks have been mailed from a $58 million class action settlement resolving allegations that Plaid failed to comply with data privacy laws.

The settlement benefits individuals with financial accounts or login credentials accessed by Plaid between Jan. 1, 2013, and Nov. 19, 2021.

Plaid allegedly violated data privacy laws by collecting financial account information for apps such as Chime, Venmo and Stripe. The company allegedly misled consumers into thinking they were logging into their accounts when, in reality, they were giving their login credentials to Plaid.

Plaid agreed to pay $58 million to resolve these allegations. Under the terms of the settlement, class members could collect an equal share of the net settlement fund. Readers report receiving payments of $35.97 each.

In order to receive settlement benefits, class members had to submit a valid claim form by April 28, 2022.

The Plaid class action lawsuit is In re: Plaid Inc. Privacy Litigation, Case No. 4:20-cv-03056-DMR, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Provigil California settlement checks

Over two years after the claim deadline, consumers are receiving checks from a $65 million class action settlement with drug manufacturers over Provigil price fixing claims.

The settlement benefits consumers or third-party payors who paid for or reimbursed the cost of Provigil or modafinil between June 24, 2006, and Aug. 8, 2019, in various states. The settlement also covers a California class of consumers who purchased Provigil, modafinil or Nuvigil between June 24, 2006, and Dec. 31, 2012.

According to a price-fixing class action lawsuit, Cephalon, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Barr Pharmaceuticals, Mylan and Sun Pharmaceuticals conspired together to raise the price of Provigil, Nuvigil and modafinil. As a result of the alleged scheme, consumers claim they paid a higher price for the sleep-disorder medications than they should have.

The defendants agreed to pay over $65 million to resolve these allegations. Under the terms of the settlement, class members could recover a cash payment based on the amount they paid for the medications. Readers say they received settlement payments of up to $785 from the fund.

In order to receive a settlement payment, class members had to submit a valid claim form by Jan. 15, 2020.

The Provigil class action lawsuits are Vista Healthplan Inc., et al. v. Cephalon Inc., et al., Case No. 06-CV-01833, and State of California v. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., et al., Case No. 19-CV-03281, both in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

CRT reseller class action rebates

Payments are in the mail from a $29 million class action settlement resolving claims that Chunghwa fixed the prices of cathode ray tubes (CRTs) through antitrust agreements.

The settlement benefits consumers who purchased a CRT or a product containing a CRT during periods between March 1, 1995, and Nov. 25, 2007, in numerous states.

Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit accused Chunghwa of conspiring with other manufacturers to raise the price of CRTs. As a result of this scheme, consumers allegedly paid more for CRT parts or products containing CRTs than they would have in a competitive market.

Chunghwa agreed to pay $29 million to resolve these allegations. After years of appeals, consumers are receiving checks worth up to $230.

In order to receive settlement benefits, consumers had to submit a claim form with the administrator by July 8, 2020.

The CRT reseller class action lawsuit is In re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-05944-SC, MDL No. 1917, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

3M Alabama water contamination settlement checks

Checks are in the mail from a $12 million class action settlement resolving claims a 3M factory contaminated Alabama waterways with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

The settlement benefits consumers who paid for water originating from either the West Morgan-East Lawrence Water and Sewer Authority, the Town Creek Water System or the West Lawrence Water Cooperative between Nov. 1, 2013, and Oct. 31, 2016, or the V.A.W. Water System or Trinity Water Works between Nov. 1, 2013, and June 30, 2016. 

The settlement also benefits residents in Alabama, Georgia or Tennessee who, for at least six months, owned or resided in a residential unit that received water from either the West Morgan-East Lawrence Water and Sewer Authority, the Town Creek Water System or the West Lawrence Water Cooperative between Oct. 5, 2013, and Sept. 29, 2016, or the V.A.W. Water System or Trinity Water Works between Oct. 5, 2013, and May 31, 2016.

Consumers in the class action lawsuit claim 3M and Daiken knowingly exposed residents of Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee to dangerous PFAS chemicals. PFAS chemicals, sometimes called “forever chemicals,” do not degrade over time and can cause serious health issues including cancer.

The defendants agreed to pay a combined $12 million to resolve these allegations. Under the terms of the settlement, class members could receive hundreds of dollars based on how much they paid for water and how long they lived in affected areas. Top Class Actions viewers report receiving payments between $100 and $300 from the settlement.

In order to receive a settlement payment, class members had to submit a valid claim form by April 15, 2022.

The 3M Daiken PFAS class action lawsuit is Lindsey, et al. v. 3M Co., Case No. 5:15-cv-01750, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Vending machine BIPA class action rebates

Readers report receiving payments from a $6.8 million BIPA class action settlement resolving claims that certain vending machines violated privacy laws by collecting fingerprints.

The settlement benefits individuals who used Compass’ or 365 Retail’s Smart Market, Avenue C, Market Now, eMart, NEX Micro Markets and Honest Eats Marketplace vending machines in Illinois between Aug. 23, 2014, and Nov. 2, 2021.

According to plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit, Compass’ and 365 Retail’s vending machines used fingerprint scans without getting consumer consent. The class action lawsuit claims that these actions violated Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA).

Under the terms of the settlement, class members were projected to receive payments between $300 and $600.

In order to receive settlement benefits, class members had to submit a claim form by July 29, 2022.

The Compass vending machine class action lawsuit is Bryant v. Compass Group USA, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-06622, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

NoTax4Nash TCPA settlement checks

Checks are in the mail from a $1 million Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action settlement resolving claims NoTax4Nash made unsolicited telemarketing calls to consumers.

The settlement benefits individuals who received one or more pre-recorded phone calls from NoTax4Nash (615-348-5237) to their cellphone July 16 or 17, 2020.

According to the class action lawsuit, NoTax4Nash violated the federal TCPA while protesting a 34% property tax increase in Nashville. The movement allegedly failed to get consumer consent before placing pre-recorded calls.

NoTax4Nash agreed to pay $1 million to resolve these allegations. Under the terms of the settlement, class members could receive an equal share of the settlement fund. Our readers have reported receiving settlement payments of $212.27.

In order to receive settlement payments, class members had to submit a valid claim form by Aug. 23, 2022.

The TCPA class action lawsuit is Elrod, et al. v. NoTax4Nash, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00617, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• DevaCurl, Nutribullet, other class action settlement payout checks in the mail
• TikTok, TD Bank, other settlement payment checks in the mail
• Settlement rebates, checks in the mail from Black & Decker, Kroger, Dominion National
• Utz, Safeway, other class action lawsuit settlement checks in the mail