One of the most recent Target lawsuits was filed in March 2017. The woman who suffered a hamstring rupture when she slipped on a wet floor in the store claimed that the company was vicariously liable for her fall. She claimed that Target’s failure to clean up the spill and warn consumers of danger left her with permanent disabilities. Despite the lack of a verdict, the woman was awarded $307,903 in damages.
Following the breach of 100 million credit card and debit card data, Target agreed to pay $110 million to card issuers and banks.
This resulted in a $10 million compensation pool for affected consumers. This plan is being challenged in court by Texas resident Leif Olson. He is the co-counsel for the Center for Class Action Fairness, a group that is critical of lawyers. It is unclear whether Olson will be able to convince the court to approve the compensation plan.
In response to the allegations, Target has agreed to settle the class action. The lawsuit also demands that Target amend its corporate security policies. The settlement also involves the payment of damages to affected consumers. In return, Target must agree to settle with the class-action lawyers. Nevertheless, the company has not yet reached a final settlement and has the right to appeal. However, a settlement is far from impossible. A judge may find that the settlement is not enforceable because the court will have to decide whether to award compensation.
The court ruled that the defendants settled the Target class-action lawsuit.
The suit alleged that the retailer misrepresented the identity of its customers. The settlement also found that Target breached the consumer agreements by assessing Returned Payment Fees and processing TDC Transactions. The company maintains that it did not wrongly market the TDC and that it is complying with the laws and terms of its agreement with the consumers.
The Target class-action lawsuit was filed in May 2017 after the cyber crooks compromised the information of 100 million customers. The retail giant has already settled with the banks and card issuers for $39 million, and in June 2017, the retailer also settled a consolidated class-action lawsuit. The settlement included payments of $10 million to affected customers and $6.75 million to plaintiff attorneys’ fees. While the settlement was a win for consumers, the lawsuit has triggered more litigation against the retailer.
The settlement also stipulated that Target must establish a $10 million fund to pay consumer claims.
The amount of the settlement was not set in stone, but the class definition was broad. For example, the Target settlement defined a class as everyone who used their credit cards at Target during the period of the breach. This meant that the targeted class likely included those who had not lost any money. They would still be liable for the out-of-pocket expenses.
The lawsuit has not been dismissed by the court. In addition to the data breach settlement, several class members filed objections in the settlement. The most detailed objection complained that the settlement privileged some members of the class. This argument was based on the objector’s admission that he did not suffer any harm, but would still be bound by the settlement’s provisions. The complaint also included a provision requiring that the defendant pay the attorneys’ fees.
The plaintiffs in this class action lawsuit alleging that Target failed to provide adequate security for its customers.
They claim that the company should pay back consumers who suffered from the same problem. This can be done by settling the cases with the responsible party. Currently, the settlement has reached a settlement of $39 million in a consolidated class-action lawsuit. The court has awarded $10 million in damages to the plaintiffs while denying liability to the company.
The Target data breach lawsuit was filed by a woman whose 8-year-old daughter found a hypodermic needle in a parking lot. She was able to prove that the needle had a needle in its case, and she and her daughter were unable to prove concrete monetary harm. The eight-year-old woman’s daughter had to undergo multiple tests to determine whether she had HIV and hepatitis. The doctor had to prescribe post-exposure prophylaxis to make sure she did not contract the disease. This case was ultimately dismissed because the plaintiffs did not show proof that she had suffered any injury from the Target data breach.