Skip to content Skip to navigation


Image of Person Rescuing Another from Debt

Defendant Syndicated Office Systems LLC does business under the name Central Financial Control, and the complaint for this class action says it was under this name that it sent debt collection letters to plaintiff Evangelia Angelakopoulos. But according to the complaint, Angelakopoulos told the company the debt was in dispute and directed it to call her attorney. When the company contacted her again, the complaint alleges, it was a violated of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) as well as the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA).

Sonic Drive-In Sign

Sonic acknowledges that it experienced a data breach that exposed the PII, credit card numbers, and other information of approximately five million customers that could allow criminals to make fraudulent charges to their accounts. The complaint for this class action alleges that it was Sonic’s negligence that enabled the data breach. Other chains, such as Wendy’s and Chipotle, have experienced data breaches recently which the complaint alleges should have put Sonic on notice. However, the complaint alleges, the system Sonic was using was in fact thirty years old, and while the company was working to update it, some locations were still on the old system.

Debt Image

Plaintiff Michelle Vullings was sent a debt collection letter that the complaint for this class action claims violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) in two different ways. The envelope in which the debt collection letter was mailed to Vullings bears the company’s name, which the complaint alleges strongly implies that the company is in the debt collection business and thereby violates her privacy. Also, the letter enclosed in the envelope gives the impression that Vullings can simply call if she wants to dispute the amount owed, whereas the FDCPA requires that the consumer must dispute the debts in writing, and must do so within thirty days.

Melted Siding

A photo in the complaint for this class action shows the side of plaintiff Richard Willis’s home, with the vinyl rippling and bulging like a restless sea. Yet according to the complaint, his warranty claim to CertainTeed was denied, with the company claiming that the problem was caused by “heat distortion” from glass reflection. Among the violations the complaint lists are breaches of express and implied warranties as well as of good faith and fair dealing, along with deceptive and unfair trade practices and false advertising.

Fruit Bliss Dates

According to the complaint for this class action, plaintiff Anthony Buso was “surprised and disappointed” to find that the bag of Fruit Bliss Organic Deglet Nour Dates he’d purchased was 80% empty. California’s Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (CFPLA) says, “A container that does not allow the consumer to fully view its contents shall be considered to be filled as to be misleading if it contains nonfunctional slack fill.” The law’s § 12606.2 offers six valid reasons for leaving empty space in a package, and, the complain says, none of them apply to the Fruit Bliss products.

Jacksons Car Wash

Plaintiff Louis Fisher took his car to Jacksons Car Wash and signed up for a month of car washes, paying with his debt card. But he didn’t just get charged for one month’s worth of car washes; according to the complaint for this class action, for months thereafter, he was billed for a month’s worth of car washes. The complaint claims that both that and the fact that he was never given a copy of his authorization for the first month of car washes are violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA).

Met Life Logo

Like a majority of Americans these days, Dale Miller is not a smoker. According to the complaint for this class action, he was never a smoker while he held his life insurance policies, including during their look-back periods—yet he was charged smoker’s rates for life insurance for years. Miller found out he was being charged as a smoker, the complaint alleges, only in 2016 when he went to reduce his GVUL policy coverage and found, when looking at the price comparisons for coverage, that he should have been paying drastically-lower premiums than he had been paying. Met Life has refused to refund the difference in the premiums, even though the complaint estimates that he overpaid by nearly 20% over sixteen years, a substantial amount.