CLASSACTION

Class Action Tracker — Demo Showcase
Live · 8 open actions · 372,437 claimants · 16 stories
Open Actions
8
Fictional dockets
Total Claimants
372,437
▲ 2 joined here
Combined Settlement Value
$784.4M
Across all eight actions
Your Claims
0
Sign in to join
QP

Quibblepay

FintechFictional · Demo
quibblepay.example

In re Quibblepay Transaction Sequencing Litigation

Account holders allege Quibblepay deliberately reordered same-day debit transactions from largest to smallest so that a single low balance produced a cascade of 34 dollar overdraft fees. Internal product notes describe the practice as revenue-positive sequencing, tested against a control group during 2023.

DefendantQuibblepay
CourtU.S. District Court, District of Marrow Bay
Filed8 Apr 2025
Claim Period1 March 2021 - 30 September 2025
Claim Deadline15 Jan 2027
Settlement Fund$46,000,000
  • Same-day transactions were posted largest-first, a sequence that maximizes how many times an account dips below zero.
  • The app displayed a current balance without the pending reorder, so a customer could not predict the charges.
  • Internal product notes tracked fee events per low-balance day as a growth metric for the overdraft line.
  • Customers who opted out of overdraft protection were still charged, booked as a posted-item adjustment.
  • You held a Quibblepay account between 1 March 2021 and 30 September 2025.
  • Your account was charged two or more overdraft fees on a single day during that period.
  • You did not already receive a refund for those fees through customer service.

Quibblepay is a consumer payments app used by about 11 million people to split bills, pay rent and move money between accounts. Its selling point is a no-fee checking layer built on top of two partner banks. The case concerns the order in which it posts debit transactions: larger transactions are posted before smaller ones, a sequence that can push a low balance into overdraft several times in one day.

Dana R.

I switched to a low-balance alert and still got hit, because the alert showed the balance before reordering. That was the moment I stopped believing the app was on my side.

2 May 2026
M. Ellery

Three 34 dollar fees in one morning, all because a rent payment cleared before a 4 dollar coffee. I called and was told the posting order is standard practice. It happened again two weeks later.

11 Mar 2026
Signing in is required to post.

Stories appear immediately. This is demo content on a fictional case — nothing here is legal advice.

18,433 claimants · deadline 15 Jan 2027
BB

Blunderbuck

FintechFictional · Demo
blunderbuck.example

Blunderbuck Data Breach Litigation

Customers allege Blunderbuck stored full card numbers it had no reason to keep, in a bucket that required no authentication, then waited 11 weeks before telling anyone. The complaint points to a 2023 security review that flagged the same bucket as public by default.

DefendantBlunderbuck
CourtSuperior Court of the State of Calderon, County of Vantage
Filed19 Feb 2025
Claim Period1 January 2019 - 12 January 2025
Claim Deadline28 Feb 2027
Settlement Fund$128,000,000
  • Full 16-digit card numbers were retained after tokenization, contrary to the published security page.
  • The storage bucket was readable without authentication for at least 94 days.
  • Notification was delayed by 11 weeks, beyond the 30-day window promised in the privacy policy.
  • Affected customers report fraudulent charges and card replacement fees the company has declined to reimburse.
  • You linked at least one card to Blunderbuck before 12 January 2025.
  • You received a breach notification, or saw a fraudulent charge on a linked card.
  • You have not already settled a claim individually with the company.

Blunderbuck is a budgeting app that links to a customer bank and card accounts and sorts spending into categories. In January 2025 it disclosed that an unauthenticated cloud storage bucket had exposed 4.2 million stored card numbers, along with names, email addresses and a year of transaction history. The company described the bucket as temporarily misconfigured.

Priya S.

The notification email arrived in February. The bucket had been public since November. Nobody explained why a budgeting app needed my full card number in the first place.

9 Feb 2026
T. Okonjo

My card was replaced twice in one month. Both times the fraudulent charge was at a merchant I had never used, for an amount just under my alert threshold.

28 Jan 2026
Signing in is required to post.

Stories appear immediately. This is demo content on a fictional case — nothing here is legal advice.

40,919 claimants · deadline 28 Feb 2027
SR

Snorkle Rides

Gig EconomyFictional · Demo
snorklerides.example

Okafor v. Snorkle Rides, Inc.

A class of drivers alleges Snorkle Rides exercises the control of an employer, setting prices and deactivating drivers on ratings, while denying the minimum wage, overtime and expense reimbursement that employee status would require.

DefendantSnorkle Rides
CourtU.S. District Court, Northern District of Calderon
Filed5 Nov 2024
Claim Period1 June 2020 - 31 December 2025
Claim Deadline31 Mar 2027
Settlement Fund$187,500,000
  • The platform sets every fare and bars drivers from negotiating, which the complaint calls employment in all but name.
  • Drivers below a 4.7 rating for two consecutive weeks are deactivated with no appeal route.
  • Driver expenses average 4,100 dollars a year, pushing effective pay below the state minimum in 6 of 12 months measured.
  • Recruiting material promised be your own boss while an internal handbook required coverage during surge windows.
  • You drove for Snorkle Rides for at least 20 trips between 1 June 2020 and 31 December 2025.
  • You paid your own vehicle, fuel or insurance costs during that period.
  • You were not engaged through a separate fleet or rental partner account.

Snorkle Rides is a rideshare platform operating in 40 cities with roughly 96,000 active drivers. Drivers are engaged as independent contractors and pay their own fuel, insurance and vehicle costs, while the app sets fares, assigns trips and disciplines drivers through a ratings threshold. The complaint argues that this level of control is indistinguishable from employment.

Bea N.

Deactivated at 4.68 after one bad week of traffic delays. No appeal, no human on the phone. Two years of driving gone in an email with a ratings chart attached.

7 Jun 2026
Luis A.

I drove 60 hours a week for a year. After fuel and insurance I cleared less than minimum wage in eight of those months. The app decided my rates and my acceptance rate, so what exactly was independent about it?

19 Apr 2026
Signing in is required to post.

Stories appear immediately. This is demo content on a fictional case — nothing here is legal advice.

61,240 claimants · deadline 31 Mar 2027
FC

Fumblecart

Gig EconomyFictional · Demo
fumblecart.example

Delgado v. Fumblecart Marketplace LLC

Shoppers allege Fumblecart quietly subtracted a per-order allocation from customer tips and kept the difference. The checkout screen said 100 percent of the tip goes to the shopper throughout the period, while payout reports label the deduction as tip offset.

DefendantFumblecart
CourtU.S. District Court, Southern District of Vantage
Filed14 Jun 2024
Claim Period1 January 2022 - 31 March 2024
Claim Deadline31 Jan 2027
Settlement Fund$22,400,000
  • Customer tips were reduced by a service allocation of up to 40 percent before payout.
  • The checkout screen stated that the full tip went to the shopper, which payout records contradict.
  • Shoppers who asked about the gap were told it covered platform processing.
  • The deduction was removed in March 2024 with no refund of the earlier amounts.
  • You completed at least one Fumblecart delivery between 1 January 2022 and 31 March 2024.
  • At least one customer tipped you on an order during that period.
  • You were paid through the standard shopper payout account, not a partner fleet.

Fumblecart is a grocery delivery marketplace that dispatches about 30,000 shoppers to fill orders at local supermarkets. Customers tip in the app after delivery. The complaint alleges that between 2022 and 2024 the company deducted a service allocation from those tips before paying shoppers, while the checkout screen told customers that the whole tip went to the shopper.

Kenji T.

The app told customers the whole tip reached me. I had screenshots of the customer side and my payout side side by side. The gap was exactly the allocation.

16 Jan 2026
Rosa M.

I kept my own spreadsheet of tips because the numbers never matched. It took me four months to work out that a fixed slice was coming off every single order.

3 Dec 2025
Signing in is required to post.

Stories appear immediately. This is demo content on a fictional case — nothing here is legal advice.

14,380 claimants · deadline 31 Jan 2027
JB

Jibberbox

SocialFictional · Demo
jibberbox.example

In re Jibberbox Adolescent Engagement Practices Litigation

A consolidated class action alleges Jibberbox engineered compulsive use in minors through streaks, autoplay and notification timing, and that its own research showed users under 18 reporting sleep loss and anxiety linked to the app.

DefendantJibberbox
CourtU.S. District Court, District of Marrow Bay
Filed22 Aug 2025
Claim Period1 January 2020 - 30 June 2025
Claim Deadline30 Apr 2027
Settlement Fund$95,000,000
  • Streak mechanics removed content continuity when a user missed a single day, which the complaint calls a deliberate loss lever for minors.
  • Push notifications were scheduled at 7am, 3pm and 9pm, the ends of the school day, to maximize re-entry.
  • Internal research from 2023 found that 61 percent of surveyed teen users wanted to use the app less.
  • Parental controls were off by default and required a photo of an ID to enable.
  • You used Jibberbox before turning 18, at any point between 1 January 2020 and 30 June 2025.
  • A parent or guardian can join on behalf of a minor.
  • You are not employed by Jibberbox or one of its advertising partners.

Jibberbox is a short-video social app with 240 million monthly users, popular with teenagers. The case concerns its notification and streak systems: an infinite feed with no natural stopping point, push notifications timed around the school day, and streaks that penalize a user for missing a single day, all aimed at users aged 13 to 17.

Sam, age 17

I deleted it three times and reinstalled the same night. The 9pm notification lands right when homework ends and it always knows what to say.

30 Jul 2026
A parent (verified)

My 15 year old set alarms to keep three streaks alive overnight. The app taught her that missing one day erases a month of effort. That is not a feature, it is a wedge.

21 Feb 2026
Signing in is required to post.

Stories appear immediately. This is demo content on a fictional case — nothing here is legal advice.

88,310 claimants · deadline 30 Apr 2027
WH

Wobblewood Home

RetailFictional · DemoClosing Soon
wobblewood.example

Whitlock v. Wobblewood Home Inc. (Lark Shelving Products Liability)

Buyers allege Wobblewood shipped the Lark line with wall anchors rated for half the stated load, and that assembly instructions omitted the wall-type check that would have prevented failures. The class seeks refunds for the units and reimbursement for damaged property.

DefendantWobblewood Home
CourtSuperior Court of the State of Alder, County of Wexford
Filed30 Jan 2025
Claim Period1 April 2021 - 31 December 2024
Claim Deadline15 Dec 2026
Settlement Fund$61,000,000
  • The supplied anchors were rated to 12 kg while the packaging claimed a 25 kg per-shelf limit.
  • Assembly instructions never asked buyers to confirm wall construction, despite an engineering note recommending it.
  • The company received 340 failure reports before issuing a recall, and kept selling remaining stock for 5 weeks.
  • Refunds were conditioned on returning the assembled unit, which most buyers could not do without damaging a wall.
  • You bought a Lark wall-mounted shelf between 1 April 2021 and 31 December 2024.
  • The unit was mounted using the anchors supplied in the box.
  • You have the order number, a receipt, or a photo of the unit.

Wobblewood Home sells flat-pack shelving, desks and wardrobes through its own site and three retail chains. The case covers the Lark line of wall-mounted shelving, sold between 2021 and 2024, which was recalled after 340 reports of brackets pulling out of drywall with the shelf loaded.

Owen B.

Customer support offered a refund if I shipped back the assembled unit. It was screwed into a wall. I would have had to damage the wall to return a product that damaged the wall.

2 Mar 2026
Greta L.

The shelf came down while loaded with books. The anchors pulled clean out of the drywall and the packaging had promised 25 kg. I still have the torn corner of the box photo.

8 Nov 2025
Signing in is required to post.

Stories appear immediately. This is demo content on a fictional case — nothing here is legal advice.

24,870 claimants · deadline 15 Dec 2026
SH

Snifflewell Health

HealthFictional · Demo
snifflewell.example

In re Snifflewell Health Patient Data Litigation

Patients allege Snifflewell de-identified intake text only by removing names, leaving dates, ZIP codes and rare symptom combinations that re-identify most users, then licensed the dataset to analytics firms and a reinsurer.

DefendantSnifflewell Health
CourtU.S. District Court, District of Alder
Filed3 Jun 2025
Claim Period1 February 2022 - 30 November 2025
Claim Deadline15 Feb 2027
Settlement Fund$34,500,000
  • Free-text symptom descriptions were licensed to third parties although the privacy page promised they would be used only to deliver care.
  • De-identification removed names but left ZIP code, birth year and visit date, a combination that re-identifies most records.
  • The dataset included diagnoses in categories the app described as sensitive and said it never shared.
  • Patients had no opt-out, and the share for research toggle on the consent screen was pre-checked.
  • You completed a Snifflewell intake form between 1 February 2022 and 30 November 2025.
  • You provided a home ZIP code and date of birth during that visit.
  • You did not separately opt in to a research program.

Snifflewell Health is a telehealth app for minor illnesses, offering same-day video visits with nurse practitioners. To use it, patients describe symptoms in a free-text intake form. The complaint alleges those descriptions were sold to a data broker and resold to insurance analytics firms in a product the company called Population Insights.

H. Watanabe

My ZIP code plus birth year plus the visit date is basically a name tag. Removal of my name did not make that anonymous.

18 Jun 2026
Renee D.

I typed a fairly specific description of my symptoms because the form asked for detail. Reading that the intake text was licensed out makes me feel stupid for being thorough.

4 Apr 2026
Signing in is required to post.

Stories appear immediately. This is demo content on a fictional case — nothing here is legal advice.

19,765 claimants · deadline 15 Feb 2027
BT

Bonknet Telecom

TelecomFictional · Demo
bonknet.example

Halloway v. Bonknet Telecom Corp.

Subscribers allege Bonknet added a line item labeled Network Optimization Fee, told callers it was required by the FCC, and never passed any part of it to a regulator. The class covers every subscriber billed the fee, whether or not they complained.

DefendantBonknet Telecom
CourtU.S. District Court, Eastern District of Vantage
Filed17 Sep 2025
Claim Period1 January 2020 - 30 September 2025
Claim Deadline31 May 2027
Settlement Fund$210,000,000
  • The fee was described to customers as government-mandated; no rule requires it and Bonknet retained the full amount.
  • The charge rose from 3.99 to 5.49 dollars in 2023 with no change in the service description.
  • Customer service scripts instructed agents to call it a regulatory pass-through.
  • Subscribers who asked to remove the fee were told it could not be itemized away.
  • You were a Bonknet broadband or mobile subscriber between 1 January 2020 and 30 September 2025.
  • Your bill included a Network Optimization Fee line item.
  • Your account was in good standing when the fee was billed.

Bonknet Telecom provides broadband and mobile service to 3.1 million households across four states. The case concerns a 3.99 dollar Network Optimization Fee added to bills from 2020, described to customers as government-mandated, which no regulator requires and which Bonknet kept in full.

Alina P.

The fee went up 1.50 dollars with no change to my plan and no letter. I only noticed because I reconcile the bill every month.

14 Aug 2026
C. Duarte

I asked three times what the Network Optimization Fee was for. Three different answers, all of which sounded mandatory. It was on the bill for 41 months.

22 May 2026
Signing in is required to post.

Stories appear immediately. This is demo content on a fictional case — nothing here is legal advice.

104,520 claimants · deadline 31 May 2027