Fraudsters misrepresented themselves online or by phone to obtain access to Lisa Torres’ Cash App account and used the app to drain her Sutton Bank account of $2,734, alleged Torres’ complaint Tuesday (docket 5:24-cv-00801) in U.S. District Court for Central California in Riverside. Though the San Bernardino County, California, resident reported the “bogus electronic transfer” immediately, the bank and Cash App provider Block, Inc., formerly Square, declined her dispute and have refused to restore her funds, said the complaint. Defendants Sutton Bank and Block are well aware of fraudulent scams in which criminals pose as legitimate sellers or Cash App users, said the complaint, citing a New York Times article on fraud involving instant payment apps such as Cash App, Venmo and Zelle. The complaint also cited a Sutton Bank webpage for “Prepaid Card Support” with a disclaimer about Cash App that says the bank doesn’t “issue, maintain or service your Cash App account, which is offered by Square, a separate company that we are not affiliated with.” Sutton Bank “will not be responsible for any and all manner of inaccuracy, delay, theft or other loss of funds that may result” from use of peer-to-peer payments using Cash App, it says. The support page directs customers to Square Cash App support for questions. Torres alleges she was awakened by a text message at 4 a.m. March 15 from Cash App stating that $2,734 was taken from her Sutton Bank account. She called Sutton Bank and Cash App when their offices opened and informed them of the fraudulent, unauthorized funds removal, even as fraudsters continued to attempt to send payments from her account. About an hour later, Torres received an email from Cash App and Sutton Bank asking her to answer a series of questions and provide proof of her dispute, and she promptly responded, said the complaint. On March 18, Torres emailed the defendants to say she never provided her log in credentials for Cash App to anyone, the complaint said. Two days later, she received an email declining her dispute and informing her the transaction with the bank had been authorized. She filed a police report, it said. Torres “implored” the defendants again to reconsider their decision and answered more questions, but they refused to consider her answers because she responded more than three days after receiving them, it said. After a third attempt to initiate an investigation, the defendants closed the dispute “in the bank’s favor” and declined to reopen it, the complaint said. Torres asserts violations of the Electronic Fund Transfers Act and the California Unfair Competition Law. She seeks actual damages, including for emotional distress; treble, statutory, punitive and nominal damages; an order of restitution; prejudgment interest; and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Xfinity Mobile attempted for a third time to assert civil conspiracy and trademark claims against phone reseller GlobalguruTech and owner Jakob Zahara but “failed to address the deficiencies in these claims this Court has pointed out twice before,” said the defendant’s response (docket 2:22-cv-01950) to the plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (SAC) in U.S. District Court for Arizona in Phoenix. Xfinity's Nov. 16, 2022, complaint alleges GGT, Zahara and their co-conspirators are handset traffickers who exploit financial incentives to acquire phones by using unlawful methods to circumvent the procedures put in place to protect Xfinity Mobile and its legitimate customers -- and then resell the phones for substantial profit. On June 14, a court order granted in part GGT’s motion to dismiss and dismissed without prejudice counts four, 10, 11 and 12, said the response. Xfinity Mobile filed an amended complaint July 7, and because it again alleged the same claims “with very few changes,” the court dismissed those counts, too, in January, said the response. Now, “with very few material changes,” Xfinity asserts the counts again, it said. The civil conspiracy claim, count four, fails because the SAC “still contains insufficient factual matter to indicate a conspiracy is plausible,” the response said. Also, Zahara and his limited-liability customers are still the only named defendants in the lawsuit, and Zahara “can’t have a conspiracy with himself,” it said. The remaining trademark infringement claims fail because GGT’s use of the Xfinity logo “still falls within the parameters of nominative fair use,” it said. "There is nothing new in the proposed Second Amended Complaint that should change the Court’s prior analysis of these claims."

Code Connect Solutions “never authorized or condoned” anyone using or infringing Amazon’s trademarks, misleading consumers or “engaging in fraudulent or illegal conduct in any manner,” said Code Connect’s answer Friday (docket 5:23-cv-00650) in U.S. District Court for Eastern North Carolina in New Bern. Code Connect is the lead defendant in one of three Amazon lawsuits filed on a single day in November to halt separate sets of alleged fraudsters from running the “impersonation” scams that dupe consumers into buying fake Amazon support services for activating Prime Video on their devices (see 2311120001).

Telecom services agent BB Telco (BBT) may have wanted defendant Monette Garcia to act as a sales representative for BBT and "conform" as subagent on its behalf, but the business relationship between the parties was not as BBT described in its Feb. 8 fraud complaint (see 2402090034), said BBT’s answer Friday (docket 7:24-cv-00042) in U.S. District Court for Southern Texas in McAllen. The plaintiff alleges that former subagent Garcia “blatantly” used its resources to poach BBT customers on behalf of a communication vendor while simultaneously acting as a BBT representative. But the truth is that Garcia paid BBT a fee for its services, said the answer. Garcia understood that BBT would provide her with an agent ID number and back office support and that in return, BBT would receive 25% of her proceeds, it said. The plaintiff acknowledged this in writing to Garcia, replacing whatever agreement BBT “may have mistakenly taken to be in effect,” it said.

Clark and Rosalind Collins seek to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a) or seek permissive intervention under Rule 24(h) as additional co-plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation arising from T-Mobile’s 2022 data breach, said their motion Friday (docket 4:23-md-03073) in U.S. District Court for Western Missouri in Kansas City. The proposed intervenors, residents of Leander, Texas, are current and longstanding T-Mobile customers dating to at least before 2005, said their motion. As with all T-Mobile customers, the pro se litigants relied on T-Mobile to keep their personal and business information “safe from unauthorized use,” it said. Neither the consolidated plaintiffs nor T-Mobile “adequately represents” the Collinses’ interests in the MDL, said the motion. U.S. District Judge Brian Wimes for Western Missouri previously granted the motion of another pro se litigant, Jeff Edwards, to intervene as of right as an additional co-plaintiff (see 2309070007). Throughout 2023 and up to the filing of their motion to intervene, the Collinses “have experienced a dramatic amount of daily spam emails” as a result of the data breach, said the motion. They also have received “countless unsolicited phone calls every few minutes to an unimaginable degree,” it said.

A former Dish Network customer’s debt settlement representative agreed with debt collector Convergent Outsourcing on May 24 to settle and close her Dish account for a lump sum payment of $259.77 to resolve in full an account showing a balance of $519.54, but the payment remained “uncollected” for months, alleged a lawsuit (docket 3:24-cv-00893), removed Thursday by defendants Dish and Convergent to U.S. District Court for Northern Texas in Dallas. Clara Garcia of Quinlan, Texas, filed the breach of contract suit Jan. 19 in Hunt County District Court in Greenville, alleging her banking information was provided to Convergent May 26, but the payment wasn’t collected. Her debt settlement representative contacted Convergent about the uncollected payment four times, the complaint said. On July 25, Convergent advised Garcia the account was recalled by Dish. The plaintiff’s debt settlement rep then contacted Dish, requesting that the satellite provider honor the May agreement, but on Aug. 8, Dish declined to honor the agreement and demanded renegotiation, the complaint said. On Dec. 12, Garcia’s counsel sent a letter to Dish and Convergent summarizing the account’s history and requesting further discussions; to date, the defendants haven’t responded, it said. Garcia claims violation of the Texas Debt Collection Practices Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and breach of contract. The laws prohibit debt collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive and unfair collection practices, it said. Garcia seeks a judgment for actual, statutory and monetary damages, plus attorneys’ fees and costs.

A required joint status report and discovery plan is due May 21 in the March 7 fraud class action brought against Amazon Prime Video, said an order signed Tuesday (docket 2:24-cv-00309) by U.S. District Judge Barbara Rothstein for Western Washington in Seattle. The plaintiffs allege they didn’t receive the benefit of their bargain when the company hiked prices for its Prime Video subscription service in January (see 2403080014). They allege that Amazon changed the terms of its annual contract with Prime subscribers Jan. 29, charging an additional $2.99 per month for the same level of Prime Video service subscribers had been receiving without commercial interruptions.

A combined joint status report and discovery plan under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) is due May 13 in the March 19 breach of contract class action 10 plaintiffs brought against Amazon over the $2.99 Prime Video add-on fee it implemented in January (see 2403200047), said an order signed Monday (docket 2:24-cv-00364) by U.S. District Judge John Chun for Western Washington in Seattle. The report will help determine if a Rule 16 conference would be useful. In addition, it will help set a schedule for the prompt completion of the case, said Chun’s order. The plaintiffs allege that Amazon has offered Prime Video with commercial-free viewing as a benefit of its Prime membership since 2011. It began running ads on Prime Video in January and, in connection with that change, required subscribers who wanted to avoid commercials to pay a $2.99 fee. The plaintiffs allege that Amazon’s actions violate the Washington Consumer Protection Act and the unfair and deceptive acts and practices statutes “of virtually every other state in the country.”

U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp for New Jersey in Trenton granted plaintiff Robyn Posternock and defendant SiriusXM's joint motion to set a briefing schedule on SiriusXM’s “renewed” motion to compel Posternock’s claims to arbitration, said the judge’s signed order Friday (docket 3:23-cv-02680). The company’s renewed motion is due June 14 and Posternock's opposition is due July 8, said the order. The judge last month denied without prejudice SiriusXM’s motion to compel, finding that the plaintiff adequately demonstrated that limited discovery was warranted on the issue of arbitrability before a decision is made on the defendant's motion to compel (see 2403150027). Discovery is to be completed by May 31. Posternock's class action is one of several alleging that SiriusXM falsely advertises its music plans at lower prices than it actually charges (see 2308210017).

Amazon doesn’t oppose consolidating Barbara Trevino’s fraud case against it with Marcos Ramos' negative reviews case; however, the company denies her claim that it stiffled consumers’ right to free speech, its response said Thursday (docket 2:24-cv-00240) in U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles. The response was made to Trevino's motion for consolidation of actions. Amazon also disagrees with Trevino’s characterization of the claims and issues in her case and the Ramos action as important or “complex.” Trevino’s claims don’t raise “important, complicated, or complex issues” but reflect the “obvious cut-and-paste job of Plaintiff’s counsel and counsel for the plaintiffs in Ramos, who have filed a bevy of similar actions across California asserting meritless claims against a host of companies by taking their standard online terms out of context, contorting, and otherwise misconstruing them,” the response said. Trevino alleges Amazon “changed the deal” on its Prime Video offering by charging consumers an additional $2.99 a month for ad-free streaming, a feature that earlier was part of a Prime membership (see 2403070012). Ramos plaintiffs allege that the conditions of use that Amazon imposes on consumers to use or shop its platforms prohibit them from mentioning Amazon or its brand names in any manner that “disparages or discredits” the company (see 2401050050). Trevino’s “baseless claims against Amazon … rest on a warped and illogical reading of standard online terms protecting Amazon’s IP rights -- terms that have nothing to do with the speech concerns implicated by California’s Yelp Law,” said the response. The e-commerce giant “looks forward to briefing these issues” to the court in its forthcoming motion to dismiss.