Verizon’s mishandling of a customer’s cellphone return may have cost him the opportunity to buy a home, alleged Brian DeLong's Fair Credit Reporting Act complaint Wednesday (docket 2:24-cv-01545) in U.S. District Court for Southern Ohio in Columbus. The named defendants in the suit are the TCC Bellefontaine Verizon store in Bellefontaine, Ohio, Verizon itself, the debt collection firm I.C. System and the Equifax, Trans Union and Experian credit reporting agencies (CRAs). Bellefontaine resident DeLong visited TCC in July to ask about switching wireless carriers from AT&T and Verizon, the complaint said. He was told if he wasn’t satisfied with the switch, he could go back to AT&T within 30 days without being charged, and AT&T confirmed it. After switching, DeLong experienced connection “lags and dropped calls,” the complaint said, so he switched back to AT&T, canceled the Verizon contract, “timely returned” the phones to TCC, and received a return receipt showing TCC accepted the return, it said. Verizon didn’t notify DeLong of the return, and it “repackaged the phones as new,” despite having no right to do so, alleged the complaint. In September, Verizon demanded that DeLong pay $6,109.63; DeLong notified Verizon the charge was an error, it said. DeLong received a bill for the same amount the next month, and again notified Verizon of the error. In a November letter, I.C. System informed DeLong it was seeking to collect a debt on behalf of Verizon for $6,109.63 plus $610.96 in fees. Later that month, DeLong had a conference call with Verizon and the store, during which Verizon and TCC acknowledged DeLong had returned the phones. When DeLong called I.C. System to say he didn’t owe Verizon money, the debt collection firm “disregarded” his explanation, the complaint said, and continued to pursue payment. In December, DeLong received credit reports from the three CRAs, each showing debts of $6,720.59, it said. He hired a lawyer, who sent a debt validation letter Jan. 2 to I.C. System, disputing the alleged debt and requesting validation, the complaint said. On Jan. 17, DeLong received a letter from I.C. System confirming it would “no longer be pursuing the debt,” it said. He disputed the “false, inaccurate and misleading” reporting of debt by the CRAs, none of which conducted a “reasonable reinvestigation” as required by the FCRA, the complaint said. As a result of the CRAs’ actions, DeLong’s credit was adversely affected, he has had difficulty buying a home, and he has had to search for homes with a higher interest rate, the complaint said. He also experiences “severe emotional distress, including anxiety, stress, and sleepless nights,” and suffered over $25,000 in damages as a result of the defendants’ "actions and inactions," it said. DeLong claims violations of the Ohio Consumer Protection Act, plus negligence, fraudulent inducement, conversion and unjust enrichment vs. TCC. He brings FCRA claims vs. Verizon and the CRAs and a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act vs. I.C. System. The plaintiff requests maximum statutory damages, plus actual, emotional, general, punitive and other damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Tonny Storey doesn’t state a claim for breach of contract, breach of contract of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act or unjust enrichment, said Amazon’s reply (docket 2:23-cv-01529) Monday in support of its motion to dismiss his first amended complaint (FAC) in U.S. District Court for Western Washington in Seattle. Storey alleges Amazon didn’t deliver on its promise of guaranteed delivery by 11 a.m. when his order, for which he paid an extra $2.99 delivery fee, arrived at 12:57 p.m. instead. “Nothing in the contract’s language offered that promise,” said Amazon’s reply. Storey concedes that the contract refers only to a “date” for a delivery “guarantee” and that Amazon delivered Storey’s order of a $19.99 Stash Tea sampler on the promised date, said the reply. The “concessions are all that is needed” to grant Amazon’s motion to dismiss, it said. No law supports Storey's allegation that the company breached its promise in its terms and conditions to issue a refund when the guaranteed delivery wasn’t provided, the reply said. Amazon argued that it was Storey’s “reasonable expectation” that it would do something different from what the contract provides, and “no law supports this “expectations” argument, it said. “Settled principles of contract law that unequivocally hold that what matters for a breach of contract claim is the language of the contract itself,” said the reply. Amazon also called Storey’s use of “reasonableness” “ironic” because it simultaneously argues the plaintiff “is permitted to do nothing to obtain a refund from Amazon if he believes he was entitled to one,” it said. That position, too, is “contradicted by the contract itself,” which tells customers to contact customer service if they believe they’re owed a refund, it said. Storey claims the process for contacting Amazon is “too onerous,” but “this is just argument of counsel” that’s not pled in the FAC, “and that is otherwise contradicted by the admission that Storey never even attempted to contact Amazon,” it said. Storey’s good faith and fair dealing claim “is extinguished by Amazon’s performance of its obligations under the parties’ contract,” said the reply, and his CPA claim fails because “he can point to no actionable misrepresentation, omission, or unfair practice by Amazon.” The plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim fails as well because there’s a valid contract between the parties; his differing interpretation of that contract “provides no basis for concluding that there is no contract at issue,” Amazon said.

Amazon and pro se defendant Ivona Brazovskaja stipulated and agree that Amazon’s fraud claims against the defendant are dismissed with prejudice and without attorneys’ fees and costs to any party, said their notice (docket 2:23-cv-01879) Thursday in U.S. District Court for Western Washington in Seattle. Brazovskaja was one of 27 individuals and unknown John Does Amazon sued in December (see 2312080052) for allegedly stealing “millions of dollars of products from Amazon’s online stores through systematic refund abuse.” The dismissal of Brazovskaja’s claims don’t affect Amazon’s claim vs. other defendants in the action, the filing said.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Barber for Middle Florida in Tampa denied as moot Cognizant Technology’s motion to dismiss a fraud complaint in light of plaintiff Derek Anderson’s filing of an amended complaint, said his text-only order (docket 8:24-cv-00045) Wednesday in a fraud case involving social media content moderation. Anderson sued Cognizant for fraudulent misrepresentation and seeks actual and compensatory damages including lost pay, medical expenses and lost future earning capacity after he experienced emotional distress and loss of enjoyment of life resulting from being exposed to "extremely graphic images" on Facebook while working as a content moderator for Cognizant.

U.S. District Judge Tana Lin for Western Washington in Seattle denied Amazon’s motion to consolidate a class action brought by plaintiff Dena Griffith over Amazon’s removal of free Whole Foods grocery delivery with In Re: Amazon Service Fee Litigation (see 2403130005), said her Thursday order (docket 2:22-cv-00743). The consolidated action involves Amazon’s imposition of a $2.99 monthly add-on fee for Prime members to get commercial-free streaming on its Prime Video service, a perk previously included for free with Prime. Amazon argued for consolidation on the grounds that both cases arise from the company’s changes under Prime and bring claims under consumer protection statutes about its allegedly false or misleading promises about Prime membership. Griffith opposed consolidation, saying the two matters don’t involve common questions of law or fact, and Napoleon argued that the matters are factually and legally different; both plaintiffs said consolidation wouldn't promote judicial economy. Amazon argues that Griffith's case and Napoleon should be consolidated because they involve common questions of law and fact and that judicial economy, consistency of results, and lack of prejudice support consolidation. Though there is some overlap, Lin said, "there are significant differences, both factually and legally, that caution against consolidation." The change in service at Whole Foods took place in 2021 vs. 2024 for Prime Video, Lin noted: “Different changes, three years apart, with different representations to consumers by Defendant.” In addition, Prime Video has its own contractual terms and conditions "that may be at issue in Napoleon but are not applicable to this matter," she said. The putative classes are also different, said the judge. In Griffith, the classes comprise all Prime members who used the Whole Foods delivery service from 2021; the classes in Napoleon comprise annual Prime subscribers as recently as December, the order said. “All these differences would appear to complicate the Court’s management of a consolidated case,” she said.

Amazon moved with defendants Digital Home Solutions and Joti Applee Dhillon to dismiss the remaining claims in a case involving alleged “impersonation” scams that dupe consumers into buying fake Amazon support services for activating Prime Video on their devices, said their joint motion to dismiss Friday (docket 1:23-cv-05175) in U.S. District Court for Eastern North Carolina in New Bern. The lawsuit was one of three that Amazon filed on the same day in November alleging that the defendants and the call centers they work with are part of the “scam ecosystem” that enables the impersonation schemes (see 2311120001). The court previously entered a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from engaging in conduct that infringed on Amazon trademarks, said the motion. The action and all claims are dismissed with prejudice without fees or costs to either side, it said. The court will retain jurisdiction over the matter to enforce the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement and permanent injunction, it said.

U.S. District Judge Claude Hilton for Eastern Virginia in Alexandria ordered defendant Alyssha Holdren to cease and desist any use of her previous employer’s confidential and proprietary information, said his consent order Thursday (docket 1:24-cv-00395) on Maximus’ motion for preliminary injunction. Maximus’ March 12 breach-of-contract complaint alleged Holdren, a former sales director at the company, deleted company data, “sabotaged its systems, and revoked administrator access of other Maximus employees” without authorization (see 2403130044). The parties reached an agreement to resolve a pending motion for a preliminary injunction and extend the terms of a temporary restraining order issued on March 15, said the order. Hilton also ordered Holdren to return to Maximum all company-owned equipment and information and to submit to a forensic examination of any devices containing company information, “or used to store Maximus information,” to allow the company to determine the scope and extent of her actions in connection with Maximum property.

All motions to amend or supplement the pleadings in Averon’s trade secrets complaint against AT&T and ZenKey are due April 11, said a scheduling order signed Thursday (docket 1:22-cv-01341) by U.S. Circuit Judge Todd Hughes for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation in the U.S. District Court for Delaware in Wilmington. Fact discovery cutoff in the case is May 22, 2025, and expert discovery cutoff is Nov. 5, 2025, said the order. A five-day jury trial is scheduled for mid-September 2026, it said. Averon alleges AT&T courted it as a business partner for Averon's passwordless authentication technology, only for the carrier to use that technology to form the ZenKey joint venture with T-Mobile and Verizon, foreclosing Averon as a direct market competitor (see 2301100002). Hughes, in a Feb. 26 order, denied AT&T’s motion to dismiss three counts of Averon’s complaint that alleged trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract, but granted its motion to dismiss six other counts involving allegations of fraud and misrepresentation, unfair competition and intentional interference with Averon’s customers (see 2402270006).

Elly Infotech denies impersonating Amazon to deceive customers, said its answer Wednesday (docket 2:23-cv-02353) in U.S. District Court for Arizona in Phoenix to Amazon’s Nov. 9 complaint (see 2311120001). Amazon alleges Elly duped consumers into buying fake support services for activating Prime Video on their devices. But Amazon’s alleged damages, “if sustained at all, were proximately caused and aggravated by the negligence, fraud, or intentional conduct of other parties or third parties,” said Elly’s answer. Amazon’s recovery, if any, “should be reduced in proportion to the negligence or fault of the other parties or third parties,” it said. Elly denies any allegations of wrongdoing “and further alleges that another unknown party is using its company name and is responsible for the purported causes of action” set forth in the complaint, it said.

The parties in three consolidated class actions against Zuffa, 49.9% owner of Ultimate Fighting Championship (see 2311120004), have reached an agreement in principle to resolve all claims between the plaintiffs and defendants, said their joint settlement notice Wednesday (docket 2:23-cv-00802) in U.S. District Court for Nevada in Las Vegas. The parties are in the process of drafting and executing “the formal settlement agreement and related papers,” and will keep the court apprised of their progress, said the notice. Each of the class actions alleged that Zuffa violated the California Automatic Renewal Law for the manner in which it runs the UFC Fight Pass streaming service.