Lemonade, Inc. Investigation

/by

Insurer Lemonade, Inc. (“Lemonade”) is the subject of a new series of lawsuits over its convenience-focused online quoting tool that disclosed drivers’ license numbers to unauthorized third parties.

Background
Lemonade, the newest major insurance company, included a tool on its public website that was designed to make it easier for individuals to obtain quotes for insurance policies by auto-populating certain information on behalf of the individual. When the individual entered only basic information, Lemonade’s website would automatically run a search for additional data obtained from other sources, and populate that information on Lemonade’s website to complete the quote. This tool was designed to make it easier for applicants to complete quotes and buy policies without having to dig out their driver’s license card or other documents.

What Happened

Cybercriminals identified Lemonade’s website as a way to obtain the drivers’ license numbers for many individuals in order to engage in various crimes. By entering a victim’s basic information, which might be publicly available online (e.g. on social media), Lemonade would disclose the person’s driver’s license number. Approximately 190,000 drivers’ license numbers were exposed to these third parties over a period of 17 months without any concrete action by Lemonade to identify or stop the threat. It is still unclear if the company has fixed the vulnerability.

Lemonade Insurance

Users Face New Harms

Victims whose drivers’ license numbers were obtained through Lemonade’s website face many kinds of threats. Because our drivers’ license numbers are so confidential and personal, criminals are able to use them to commit more severe forms of fraud. With access to these drivers’ license numbers, criminals can solicit loans, access retirement accounts, charge to the victims’ credit cards, and more. Without the drivers’ license numbers, criminals would have far less access to the victims’ virtual and financial lives. Besides the obvious fraud that can result from this disclosure, victims also face a heightened risk of future fraud as well as the loss of value in that information, lost time spent trying to stop existing fraud, and lost time preventing future injuries. Victims may spend years, even their entire lives, spending extra time and money monitoring their credit and other financial accounts.

Victims may be able to seek damages from Lemonade including compensation for actual losses, statutory damages, and injunctive relief. If you believe your information has been disclosed by Lemonade and experienced any of the injuries described above, submit the form below to learn more about what you can do.

Your Information

Name(Required)
Email Address(Required)
Were/are you a customer or applicant for services from Lemonade Inc.?(Required)
Did you receive a notice from Lemonade Inc. indicating that your information may have been disclosed?(Required)
Do you believe you have experienced any of the following harms as a result of Lemonade Inc. disclosing your information?
Select all that apply
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP (“LGN”) purchases advertisements on search engines, social media platforms, and other websites. Providing information to LGN, whether in response to an advertisement or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and LGN.  We will not agree to represent you until we (1) have determined that we do not have any conflicts that would preclude us from representing you; (2) have thoroughly evaluated your matter; and (3) have confirmed we are authorized to engage in the practice of law in the relevant jurisdiction.  Nothing in LGN’s advertising or its websites is intended to suggest that its services are of a greater quality than the services that may be provided by other lawyers nor are past results a promise or suggestion of future results.

Tea Dating Advice Investigation

/by

Background
Tea Dating Advice (“Tea Dating”) is an app created in 2023 to serve women using dating apps. Tea sought to give women the ability to vet the men they find on dating apps. Women are able to post feedback and information about men across different dating apps and subsequent women may review that feedback for red flags. The Tea Dating app is only for women, and men are not allowed to join. To enforce this rule, the app verifies whether the people signing up for Tea Dating are women. For a time, Tea Dating required users to upload a photo of the user’s driver’s license, though it later only required photos.

What Happened

Recently, actors posting on the site 4chan announced they had discovered a database related to the Tea Dating app including photos of users’ driver’s licenses and other information. This information was quickly spread on the internet. Tea Dating has confirmed this incident. The database was hosted on Google’s Firebase platform owned by Tea Dating. The company claims to have more than 1.6 million users, and some reports show tens of thousands of users’ data were exposed. Given how the data was stored, Tea Dating failed to utilize reasonable security measures to ensure its users’ personal data was safe. Tea Dating asked for and received users’ personal information, including drivers license numbers, as a condition to using Tea Dating’s platform.

Users Face New Harms

The users who have had data exposed from the Tea Dating disclosure face a heightened risk of fraud and identify theft, but also a very real risk of retaliation. Tea knew, or should have known, that the men identified on its platform would seek both the content posted on the app as well as the identities of the women posting that content. This may increase the users’ risk of retaliation, dating violence, and fraud.

Victims of this disclosure face many kinds of injuries including but not limited to identity theft, spam, credit fraud, loss of control of their information, and lost time spent trying to get the information removed from publicly accessible places.

If you registered for the Tea Dating Advice app anytime since 2023, your information may have been made public as a result of Tea Dating’s failures to safeguard your data. Please fill out the form below immediately to learn more about your rights.

Your Information

Name(Required)
Email Address(Required)
Address(Required)
Did you register as a user of the Tea Dating Advice app?
Do you believe your information may have been disclosed?
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP (“LGN”) purchases advertisements on search engines, social media platforms, and other websites. Providing information to LGN, whether in response to an advertisement or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and LGN.  We will not agree to represent you until we (1) have determined that we do not have any conflicts that would preclude us from representing you; (2) have thoroughly evaluated your matter; and (3) have confirmed we are authorized to engage in the practice of law in the relevant jurisdiction.  Nothing in LGN’s advertising or its websites is intended to suggest that its services are of a greater quality than the services that may be provided by other lawyers nor are past results a promise or suggestion of future results.

Frozen Potato Price-Fixing Lawsuit

/by

Overview
Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP was the first to file an antitrust class action lawsuit against defendants Lamb Weston, McCain Foods, J.R. Simplot, and Cavendish Farms for alleged price-fixing in the market for frozen potato products such as french fries, hash browns, and tater tots. 

What Does the Lawsuit Allege?
The lawsuit alleges that the four companies exchanged competitively sensitive information and conspired to inflate prices for Frozen Potato Products, causing their customers to pay more for those products.

Details on the Parties and the Complaint
The case is Redner’s Markets, Inc. v.  Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc. et al., Case 1:24-cv-11801 (N.D. Ill.) and is brought by plaintiff Redner’s Markets, Inc. on behalf of itself and a proposed class of persons and entities that purchased frozen potato products directly from one or more of the defendants, within the United States, anytime since at least January 1, 2021. A copy of the complaint can be found below.

Articles & Documents
Complaint

Frozen Potato Price-Fixing, french fries, hash browns, tater tots, lawsuit, price-fixing, potato cartel

Contact

If you have information relevant to this important litigation, please contact us via the form or email us at potatoinvestigation@locklaw.com.

Your Information

Name(Required)
Email Address(Required)
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP (“LGN”) purchases advertisements on search engines, social media platforms, and other websites. Providing information to LGN, whether in response to an advertisement or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and LGN.  We will not agree to represent you until we (1) have determined that we do not have any conflicts that would preclude us from representing you; (2) have thoroughly evaluated your matter; and (3) have confirmed we are authorized to engage in the practice of law in the relevant jurisdiction.  Nothing in LGN’s advertising or its websites is intended to suggest that its services are of a greater quality than the services that may be provided by other lawyers nor are past results a promise or suggestion of future results.

Construction Equipment Rental Antitrust Litigation

/by

Background

The U.S. market for construction equipment rental is substantial and growing. Individuals and companies often rent rather than purchase the equipment they need for construction projects because renting is usually more affordable, especially for smaller companies or for short-term projects. Renting also allows companies to access newer, more up-to-date equipment models.

Beginning in at least 2021, the largest construction equipment rental companies substantially raised rental prices and have kept them at an elevated level since. The lawsuit alleges that these rental equipment companies coordinated with Rouse Services LLC, and Rouse’s parent, RB Global, to restrain competition and share competitively sensitive information in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The Defendants agreed to exchange competitively sensitive, non-public data, such as rental invoices and real-time inventory data, to coordinate their pricing through Rouse in order to maximize rental rates. Rouse launched its Rental Insights (“RRI”) product in 2011. Since then, the number of companies using its system has increased to approximately 400, including all major industry players and at least 60% of the North American rental equipment market.

The lawsuit alleges that not only does Rouse collect competitively sensitive information from all its clients – which it uses to set prices across rental companies – it also explicitly tells rental companies who else is sharing their data and which pricing strategies they are employing. One rental equipment defendant executive admitted: “We’re all using the same data.” Another explained that Rouse “essentially standardized a lot of price competition in the industry.”

The lawsuit alleges that the construction equipment rental industry is particularly susceptible to antitrust conspiracies due to increasing consolidation within the industry. As the dominant players holding the majority of market share for construction equipment rentals, the rental equipment company defendants dictate the prices offered to individuals and companies who rent construction equipment.

The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on April 17, 2025, and is captioned Kris Swanson Construction LLC v. RB Global, Inc.; et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-04236.

Do you rent construction equipment?

If you rent or have rented construction equipment since March 31, 2021 and are located in the United States, please contact us.

CONTACT

If you would like to discuss your legal options, please contact Steve Teti or Joe Bourne at sjteti@locklaw.com, jcbourne@locklaw.com, or at 612-339-6900.

ARTICLES & DOCUMENTS

Complaint

SaveOnSP and PrudentRx

/by

Overview
Pharmacy Benefit Managers (“PBMs”) like Express Scripts and Caremark have partnered with secretive third party companies, such as SaveOnSP and PrudentRx, to siphon off patient copay assistance meant to help patients afford their prescription drugs and to foist thousands of dollars of additional healthcare costs onto patients. Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP (“LGN”) has filed suit against these programs for violating federal fraud and insurance laws, and for increasing healthcare costs for targeted patients.

Background

The Affordable Care Act (the “ACA”) provides safeguards against excess healthcare costs for patients in the U.S., including an upper limit on patients’ copay and coinsurance obligations and a maximum that a patient can be forced to pay out-of-pocket each year. Still, prescription drug costs threaten to undermine these protections. PBMs negotiate steep discounts off of drugs’ list prices for the benefit of health plans, but refuse to share those discounts with patients. The result is disproportionately high costs for patients whose need life-saving, but expensive, medications.

Studies lay bare the disastrous effects of PBMs’ efforts to shift healthcare costs to patients: a majority of patients on employer-sponsored health plans report delaying filling prescriptions, rationing medications, or skipping prescribed therapy altogether due to cost. Three quarters of patients cannot afford prescriptions that cost $250 or more out of pocket. To help ensure patients can access necessary and life-saving medications, manufacturers of drugs with high patient costs offer patient assistance programs. These programs cover patients’ out-of-pocket costs up to a set amount. These patient assistance programs, traditionally, have helped reduce the cost burdens of patients with complex and expensive medical conditions.

Recently, PBMs have partnered with companies like SaveOnSP and PrudentRx to evade the ACA’s protections and nullify the relief that patient assistance programs provide. These companies claim to have found a loophole in the ACA: they target expensive medications with the most generous patient assistance programs and designate those drugs “non-essential health benefits,” regardless of how essential the medications may be to a patient’s health. This, they claim, allows health plans to charge copays and coinsurance in excess of the ACA’s limits, and to refuse to count those payments—by patients or patient assistance programs—towards patients’ out-of-pocket limits.

Once retained by a health plan, SaveOnSP and PrudentRx target patients who are on these drugs and increase their out-of-pocket obligations to hundreds, if not thousands of dollars a

month. They then coerce patients to agree to participate in their programs with misleading promises of $0 copays if they participate and the threat of thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs if they do not. When patients sign up, these patient assistance raiders drain the maximum amount of funding available from patient assistance programs, and then give that assistance to insurers, not patients.

Targeted patients, meanwhile, lose the benefit of patient assistance. SaveOnSP and PrudentRX refuse to count the large patient assistance payments they collect towards patient’s out-of-pocket obligations. As a result, targeted patients end up having to pay thousands of dollars in additional medical costs during the year that otherwise would have been paid by their insurer after they reached their maximum out-of-pocket limits.


Details of the Cases

LGN has filed two lawsuits against healthcare industry companies, alleging that those companies steal patient copay assistance funds, violate the ACA, and force patients to incur excess healthcare costs.

Gluesing v. PrudentRx LLC, et al. (filed in federal court in Rhode Island) seeks to hold PrudentRx, LLC and Caremark Rx LLC accountable for a fraudulent scheme to force patients to pay thousands more for their health insurance by depriving patients of the benefit of patient copay assistance. On February 6, 2025, the court appointed LGN to serve as interim lead class counsel in this important litigation.

Gurwitch v. Save On SP, LLC, et al. (filed in federal Court in the Northern District of New York) seeks to hold Save On SP LLC; Express Scripts, Inc.; and Accredo Health Services, Inc. accountable for a similar scheme.

Contact
If you have been impacted by programs like SaveOnSP or PrudentRx and would like to get involved, please submit your information below or reach out to Brian Clark or Kristie LaSalle.

Documents
Complaint – Gluesing v. PrudentRx LLC, et al.
Complaint – Gurwitch v. Save On SP, LLC, et al

Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP (“LGN”) purchases advertisements on search engines, social media platforms, and other websites. Providing information to LGN, whether in response to an advertisement or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and LGN.  We will not agree to represent you until we (1) have determined that we do not have any conflicts that would preclude us from representing you; (2) have thoroughly evaluated your matter; and (3) have confirmed we are authorized to engage in the practice of law in the relevant jurisdiction.  Nothing in LGN’s advertising or its websites is intended to suggest that its services are of a greater quality than the services that may be provided by other lawyers nor are past results a promise or suggestion of future results.

GoodRx Antitrust Litigation

/by

Overview
Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP has filed an antitrust class action lawsuit against generic drug coupon provider GoodRx and Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) Caremark, Express Scripts, MedImpact, and Navitus. The lawsuit challenges those defendants’ conduct in artificially suppressing prescription drug reimbursement rates paid to independent pharmacies, and increasing fees charged to independent pharmacies, through the use of GoodRx-supplied prices. The defendants’ conduct has caused financial harm to independent pharmacies throughout the country.

What Does the Lawsuit Allege?
The lawsuit alleges that GoodRx and the PBM defendants conspired to suppress reimbursement rates and increase fees charged to independent pharmacies on all GoodRx-related transactions through GoodRx’s “integrated savings program.” The GoodRx integrated savings program uses GoodRx’s pricing algorithm, and real-time pricing information from PBMs, to determine prices of generic drug transactions—and to enrich GoodRx and the PBMs at the expense of independent pharmacies.

The lawsuit seeks to recover the damages incurred by independent pharmacies throughout the United States, and to put a stop to the illegal conduct of GoodRx and the PBMs in participating in the GoodRx integrated savings program. It is the first lawsuit in the U.S. challenging this conduct.

Who is Affected?
Independent pharmacies throughout the United States may have been affected by the defendants’ conduct. If your pharmacy has dispensed generic prescription medication to a patient using insurance and received reimbursement from Caremark, Express Scripts, MedImpact, or Navitus for that prescription at a GoodRx-supplied price, it may have been injured by the defendants’ conduct.

Details on the Parties and the Complaint
The plaintiff, Keaveny Drug, an independent pharmacy in Minnesota, filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuit is captioned Keaveny Drug, Inc. v. GoodRx, Inc. et al. Case No. 2:24-cv-09379. The defendants are GoodRx, Inc., GoodRx Holdings, Inc., CVS Caremark Corp., Express Scripts, Inc., MedImpact Healthcare Systems, Inc., and Navitus Health Solutions, LLC.

Articles & Documents
Complaint

Contact
If you feel you may have been impacted and would like to sign up for case updates or for additional questions, please use the form or email us at info@locklaw.com.

Your Information

Name(Required)
Email Address(Required)
Which State Does Your Pharmacy Do Business In?(Required)
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP (“LGN”) purchases advertisements on search engines, social media platforms, and other websites. Providing information to LGN, whether in response to an advertisement or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and LGN.  We will not agree to represent you until we (1) have determined that we do not have any conflicts that would preclude us from representing you; (2) have thoroughly evaluated your matter; and (3) have confirmed we are authorized to engage in the practice of law in the relevant jurisdiction.  Nothing in LGN’s advertising or its websites is intended to suggest that its services are of a greater quality than the services that may be provided by other lawyers nor are past results a promise or suggestion of future results.

PVC Pipe Antitrust Litigation

/by

Overview
Lockridge Grindal Nauen (“LGN”) has been appointed co-lead counsel in a lawsuit filed on behalf of purchasers of PVC municipal water pipe and electrical conduit (collectively, “PVC Pipes”).  Prices for PVC Pipes have been historically high for the last several years.  Purchasers of PVC Pipes such as municipalities and contractors have been shouldering the burden of these high prices, paying more for the PVC Pipes they need to complete critical infrastructure and electrical projects. LGN has investigated the markets for PVC Pipes and determined that PVC converters (manufactures) used the COVID-19 pandemic as cover for illegal price-fixing and need to be held accountable.

What Does the Lawsuit Allege?
The lawsuit alleges that Defendants colluded in exploiting the COVID-19 economic crisis by artificially maintaining the historically high pricing brought by the COVID pandemic. Like so many other recent antitrust cases, there is a price reporting firm at the center of Defendants’ conspiracy. Defendants used OPIS as the proverbial smoke-filled backroom to exchange business information, monitor their competitors, and frustrate the dynamics of a competitive market. 

On August 23, 2024, LGN filed a lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of PVC pipes alleging that beginning in or around January 2021, PVC Pipe prices were artificially inflated because of a conspiracy between the price reporting service OPIS and the largest converters of PVC Pipes.


What are PVC Pipes?
PVC municipal water pipe is PVC pipe that carries the municipal, potable (i.e., drinking) water supply from reservoirs, lakes, or rivers to treatment facilities and from there to water mains that distribute water throughout the community. PVC electrical conduit is PVC pipe used to protect bundled wires.

Details on Parties and the Complaint
The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on August 23, 2024, and is captioned Bavolak v. Atkore, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:24-cv-07639.  The Defendants are Oil Price Information Service LLC (“OPIS”), Atkore, Inc., Cantex, Inc., Diamond Plastics Corporation, IPEX USA LLC, JM Eagle, National Pipe and Plastics, Inc., Otter Tail Corporation, Prime Conduit, Inc., Southern Pipe, Inc. (Southern Pipe), and Westlake Corporation.

Did you purchase PVC municipal water pipe or electrical conduit after January 2021?  If so, please contact us.

Articles & Documents
Consolidated Complaint
Leadership Order
Reuters Article – Major PVC pipe makers accused of price-fixing in contractor’s lawsuit
Bloomberg Article – Atkore, Other Manufacturers Hit With PVC Pipes Price-Fixing Case

Contact
If you feel you may have been impacted and would like to sign up for case updates or for additional questions, please use the form or contact Brian Clark or Simeon Morbey

Your Information

Name(Required)
Email Address(Required)
Which State do you Currently Reside?(Required)
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP (“LGN”) purchases advertisements on search engines, social media platforms, and other websites. Providing information to LGN, whether in response to an advertisement or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and LGN.  We will not agree to represent you until we (1) have determined that we do not have any conflicts that would preclude us from representing you; (2) have thoroughly evaluated your matter; and (3) have confirmed we are authorized to engage in the practice of law in the relevant jurisdiction.  Nothing in LGN’s advertising or its websites is intended to suggest that its services are of a greater quality than the services that may be provided by other lawyers nor are past results a promise or suggestion of future results.

Admixtures Antitrust Litigation

/by

Summary
Lockridge Grindal Nauen is prosecuting an antitrust class action alleging that the world’s largest manufacturers of concrete and cement additives conspired with each other to increase the prices they charge for those construction chemicals.

Background
The defendants and potential defendants accused of conspiring to fix the prices of their admixtures are:

The complaint alleges that the defendants implemented their agreement to raise the prices of their concrete and cement additives through constant price increases and surcharges, resulting in skyrocketing prices for concrete and cement additives sold in the United States. This antitrust class action comes on the heels of dawn raids by the European Commission and the United Kingdom’s Competition and Markets Authority, and grand jury proceedings by the United States Department of Justice, because of potential violations of antitrust laws that prohibit cartels and restrictive business practices.

Were you affected by the alleged concrete and cement additives conspiracy?

If your construction company purchased ready-mix concrete, concrete admixtures, cement additives, or admixtures for mortar any time since 2018, you may have overpaid for those construction chemicals.

Contact
If you feel you may have been impacted and would like to sign up for case updates or for additional questions, please contact Jessica Servais or Joe Bourne.

Articles & Documents
Complaint

Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP (“LGN”) purchases advertisements on search engines, social media platforms, and other websites. Providing information to LGN, whether in response to an advertisement or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and LGN.  We will not agree to represent you until we (1) have determined that we do not have any conflicts that would preclude us from representing you; (2) have thoroughly evaluated your matter; and (3) have confirmed we are authorized to engage in the practice of law in the relevant jurisdiction.  Nothing in LGN’s advertising or its websites is intended to suggest that its services are of a greater quality than the services that may be provided by other lawyers nor are past results a promise or suggestion of future results.

PayPal Antitrust Litigation

/by
BACKGROUND

Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP has been appointed as co-lead counsel in a lawsuit the Firm has filed on behalf of consumers against PayPal concerning anticompetitive agreements between PayPal and all eCommerce merchants that accept PayPal as a method of payment. The lawsuit alleges that PayPal’s Anti-Steering Rules have caused consumers to pay more than they ordinarily would have for their eCommerce transactions, in violation of federal antitrust and other laws. 

PayPal is the dominant eCommerce payments platform in the United States. More than 400 million consumers have PayPal accounts, including 75% of all Americans. Nearly 1 million eCommerce websites in the United States accept PayPal as a means of payment. Every day, PayPal processes 41 million transactions.  

To accept PayPal, eCommerce merchants in the United States enter form contracts with PayPal that, since no later than 2010, strictly prohibit offering price discounts when consumers use non-PayPal means of payment. Thus, while PayPal charges merchants the highest transaction fees in the industry (over 3.5% per eCommerce transaction), PayPal-accepting merchants have agreed by contract that they will not use price incentives to steer consumers away from PayPal to more cost-effective payment solutions. By way of example, if a PayPal-accepting merchant sells an iPhone 11s for $288.00 when a consumer pays with PayPal, that merchant cannot offer even one penny less than $288.00 to consumers who select a more cost-effective payment method to complete the same transaction. 

Since at least 2017, PayPal’s merchant agreements also prohibit non-price forms of steering consumers toward rival payment platforms. Under such agreements, eCommerce merchants can neither express any preference for other payment options, nor prioritize them in their online storefronts or checkout flows. Merchants must present PayPal as an entirely neutral option when, in fact, the economic consequences of clicking PayPal at checkout are significant and adverse. 

These restraints are known as “Anti-Steering Rules,” and PayPal is alleged to have violated various antitrust and other laws by their imposition thereof. Without these Anti-Steering Rules, merchants could competitively price transactions by the cost of the selected payments platform, allowing consumers to secure discounts at checkout. The Anti-Steering Rules, however, preclude any such discounts, effectively fixing a price floor for millions of products that eCommerce consumers can obtain with payment methods other than PayPal. 

The result is higher merchant transaction fees across the industry, but it is ultimately everyday eCommerce consumers who pay the price. Beyond PayPal’s market dominance, one of the reasons merchants routinely accept PayPal’s Anti-Steering Rules is that, while these rules increase merchants’ transaction fees, such fees are baked into the prices merchants charge consumers. In other words, consumers pay the cost of PayPal’s Anti-Steering Rules, not merchants. 

Higher prices are not the only consumer injury resulting from PayPal’s Anti-Steering Rules, which also prevent merchants from conveying the pricing information needed for consumers to make a free and informed choice between payment alternatives. That PayPal cannot nudge its customers away from PayPal by conveying simple economic facts – for example, that PayPal charges industry-high fees that inflate prices – also fundamentally distorts competition. 

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a class of consumers nationwide who transacted with the nearly one million U.S. eCommerce merchants who have agreed to PayPal’s Anti-Steering Rules. The lawsuit asserts claims under the federal Sherman Act, as well as state competition laws. 

The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on October 5, 2023, and is captioned Sabol v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 5:23-cv-5100. 

Are you a Class member? 

If you are a consumer who made online eCommerce transactions and are interested in learning more about this lawsuit, please contact us. 

CONTACT

If you would like to discuss your legal options, please contact Brian Clark or Steve Teti at (bdclark@locklaw.com), (sjteti@locklaw.com), or at 612-339-6900.

CASE DOCUMENTS

  1. Amended Complaint
  2. Leadership Order

Protected: Tires Antitrust Litigation

/by

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below: