Worst False Ad Settlements of 2025

Not every class-action settlement resolving allegations of false advertising or deceptive marketing delivers a fair deal for consumers. To highlight how consumers have gotten shafted this year, and what they can do about it going forward, here are some settlements that caught TINA.org’s eye.

Apple

Over the objections of multiple class members, a federal court in October granted final approval of a settlement against Apple involving its voice-assistant Siri. According to the initial complaint, Apple misrepresented when Siri was “listening” and eavesdropped on users and shared recordings of the private conversations with third parties. Owners of Siri-enabled Apple devices like iPhones had objected to the settlement on a number of fronts, from class compensation capped at $20 a device, to attorneys’ fees totaling nearly $30 million, to a lack of stated assurances from Apple that it won’t spy on users and put their personal information at risk in the future.

“The agreement fails to include meaningful non-monetary remedies, such as commitments from Apple to improve Siri’s privacy safeguards, disclosure procedures, or user controls to prevent future unauthorized activations,” wrote one objector.

What does it include in terms of non-monetary relief? Just two things: Apple must confirm that it has permanently deleted all individual Siri audio recordings collected prior to October 2019 (when the original lawsuit was filed) and publish a webpage with information on its optional “Improve Siri” feature, which allows Apple to “store and have employees review a sample of audio interactions with Siri … in order to help Apple develop and improve Siri.”

Capital One

This summer, Capital One agreed to resolve multiple lawsuits filed against it by current and former Capital One 360 Savings accountholders alleging the financial institution marketed its 360 Savings accounts as “high interest” even as the rate paid on the accounts fell to as low as 0.3%. The complaints further allege that the company failed to disclose the existence of a new savings account called 360 Performance Savings that was virtually identical to 360 Savings except for a much higher interest rate (4.35%).

While the proposed settlement would, among other things, require Capital One to pay out a collective $125 million in “additional interest” to the 4 to 5 million consumers who maintain their 360 Savings accounts, the payments are the equivalent of these class members receiving “roughly 0.8% interest on their deposits [or 4 to 8 times less than 360 Performance savings accounts holders] for less than 16 months, at which time Capital One will revert them back to whatever interest rate it likes.”

In September, attorneys general from 18 states filed an amici brief opposing the settlement, arguing it “would not remedy the deception,” but instead “perpetuate the two-tier scheme at the heart of it.” The AGs also contended that the agreed payout would actually save the company over $800 million in interest payments than if 360 Savings accountholders had converted to a 360 Performance Savings account. Meanwhile, “Capital One would keep over $2.5 billion in unpaid interest, while the average consumer – who lost out on more than $717 in interest – would receive less than $54 in direct compensation.”

Several class members also objected to the settlement. Wrote one objector, “This settlement amounts to no more than a slap on the wrist, and provides Capital One with a strong financial incentive to continue its deceptive and injurious practices in the future.”

Siding with the AGs and class-member objectors, the district court rejected the settlement concluding that consumers may only be compensated for less than 10% of their damages and “millions of class members would continue to experience the same financial harm that they have already experienced for years.”

It’s now back to the drawing board for these litigators. And let’s hear a round of applause for the objectors.

Olapex

At least the Apple and Capital One settlements provided consumers with some cash. The same cannot be said of a settlement against Olapex for allegedly falsely marketing its haircare products as “Made in USA.” In lieu of cash rewards, each class member was only eligible for a single $5 voucher that could only be used on the Olapex website.

The response from several class members who objected to the settlement was what you might expect.

“I do not want a voucher to purchase more Olapex products,” wrote one objector. “I find it unreasonable to be compensated with further purchases of a product that was central to the deception.” Another class member pointed out that even the cheapest Olaplex products cost several times more than $5. A third objector noted that $5 “will not even cover the product’s shipping cost,” adding, “All this supposed settlement does is drive traffic to the Olapex website – this is a marketing campaign disguised as a settlement.” Yet another class member, in addition to denouncing the $5 vouchers, objected to the request for more than $1 million in attorneys’ fee, calling it “excessive and disproportionate to the value provided to the Class.”

Despite these arguments, a court granted final approval of the settlement in July.

AT&T

In June, a district court granted preliminary approval of a settlement in which AT&T would be required to pay $177 million to resolve multiple lawsuits filed against it for allegedly failing to protect customers’ personal information. Despite representations that the telecoms giant would safeguard customers’ sensitive information, the personal information of 73 million former and current AT&T customers was leaked on the dark web following a data breach, the complaints allege.

The response to the proposed settlement from class members was swift – and damning.

After the district court’s preliminary approval, a number of class members filed objections arguing that the settlement would grossly undercompensate victims. As one objected explained, “Tens of millions of individuals are included in this class. Even if only a fraction file claims, the available funds will result in minimal per-person payments, which fail to reflect the scale of the breach.” The class member noted that the maximum payouts ($5,000 or $2,500 per person depending on the type of personal information exposed, which will be reduced on a pro rata basis if too many class members file claims) pale in comparison to compensation offered consumers in other major breach settlements, pointing to T-Mobile (up to $25,000 per person) and Equifax (up to $20,000 person). Another objector argued that a “potential cash payment … does not reflect the lifelong risk of identity theft, financial fraud, and personal security threats I now face. The damage is not a one-time event; it is a permanent vulnerability.”

A final fairness hearing is scheduled for Dec. 3.

Kimberly-Clark

In an effort to resolve a lawsuit alleging that Kimberly-Clark’s wipes are falsely advertised as “flushable,” the parties reached a settlement that would provide class members who didn’t keep their receipts a maximum of $7. (Those with receipts are eligible to claim as much as $50.60.) Meanwhile, plaintiffs’ attorneys are slated to receive more than $3 million. And despite allegations that the “flushable” wipes do not disintegrate and cause plumbing problems when flushed, Kimberly-Clark is still allowed to market its wipes as “flushable.”

This settlement didn’t sit well with at least one class member who objected arguing that the agreement disproportionately benefits class counsel over class members.

In July, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a district court’s approval of the settlement noting that while Kimberly-Clark agreed to pay up to $20 million in compensation to the class, class members ultimately claimed “a little under $1 million.” (According to the class member’s objection, the settlement website did not make filing a claim easy.)

“Successful class counsel should certainly be compensated,” the Second Circuit wrote in its decision sending the case back to the district court. “But the share of recovery that class counsel takes as compensation sheds light on how much is left for the class—or how much was negotiated for the class in the first place.”

In August, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for final approval of the settlement, prompting two class members, including the one who initially opposed the agreement, to file objections. The case is still pending.

What You Can Do

Over the years, TINA.org has challenged a number of false advertising class-action settlements that left consumers out in the cold, filing numerous amicus curiae briefs that spotlight and oppose unfair terms. While we’ve succeeded at times in persuading courts – and parties – that certain deals need to be renegotiated, we’ve also been met with resistance, often because TINA.org is not a party to the lawsuit but rather a “friend of the court.”

As part of our mission to empower consumers to protect themselves and one another against false and deceptive marketing, we recently launched a newsletter-exclusive series called The Shaft, which exposes class-action failures and explains exactly how consumers can fight back.

We know settlements are compromises, and perfection is rare, if not impossible. But too often, consumers are shortchanged while deceptive marketers are allowed to continue their dishonest practices and class-action attorneys make bank. That’s why your voice matters! When you come across a settlement you believe is unfair, speak up and file an objection.

Sign up for our newsletter.

—

Note: The above content is meant to be illustrative of the types of flaws TINA.org has seen in settlements reached in false advertising class-action lawsuits this year. It is not intended to provide an exhaustive list of the issues present in the settlement agreements described above. (Certainly, other issues exist.)

Find more of our coverage on class-action lawsuits.