Junk Fees at JFK, LaGuardia and Newark Airports
Why are these airport vendors slyly charging consumers for “employee benefits”?
September 2020: The case was transferred to another court in California where a related case, Soo et al v. Lorex Corp. et al (Case No. 20-cv-1437, N.D. Cal.), is pending. (Case No. 20-cv-6606, N.D. Cal.)
April 2020: A class-action lawsuit was filed against Lorex Corp. for allegedly misleadingly advertising that consumers can monitor their home security video recordings on cellular phones and tablets when, according to plaintiffs, the company updated its systems in August 2019 resulting in consumers losing the ability to view video remotely. (Mapstead et al v. Lorex Corp., Case No. 20-cv-936, C.D. Cal.)
Why are these airport vendors slyly charging consumers for “employee benefits”?
Supplement maker agrees to pay $750K to settle deceptive health claims lawsuit.
Every now and then you overthink.
Settlement comes after TINA.org exposed thousands of deceptive income claims.
TINA.org sheds light on confusing and misleading brightness claims.