Delta Dental Faces Class Action Lawsuit for Wrongfully Disclosing Patient Health Information

Delta Dental of New York installed tracking technologies on its website to gain insights into its members that would inform how it markets its plans. However, by installing the technologies, Delta Dental effectively planted a bug on its customers web browsers, compelling them to unknowingly disclose their private health data to third-party companies.  

Eric Dwoskin is leading a class action lawsuit against Delta Dental of New York for mishandling of protected health information.  

The complaint, filed in New York federal court, claims that Delta Dental marketed various digital tools to clients to help them find dentists near them within their insurance plan. According to the complaint, those tools were embedded with tracking technologies from several major companies that, unbeknownst to users, disclosed their personal health information to these companies and others without effective consent. 

The complaint states that the disclosed data included information revealing Delta Dental members’ personal identities, their health plan, sensitive personal health information, which doctors were near their ZIP code, and other identifiers like age, gender, and more.  

The suits seek to hold Delta Dental accountable for violating the federal laws, rules and regulations and related state laws that prohibit medical providers from using tracking tools in any way that may disclose patient health information to third-party companies without consent. 

“Patients place immense trust in their healthcare providers to safeguard their sensitive information, especially in an era where data privacy is paramount,” said Dwoskin. “It is particularly troubling for companies like Delta Dental to exploit this trust by allowing private health data to be shared without consent. Not only does this violate clear HIPAA regulations, but it also compromises the very foundation of patient-provider relationships.” 

Renowned Sports Author Calls Texas A&M University’s Ethics into Question

At Texas A&M University, the student section of the football stadium is called the “Home of the 12th Man,” inspired by the actions of E. King Gill, who stood on the sideline during a 1922 Aggie football game, ready to play in case his team ran out of reserve players. Today, the 12th Man tradition symbolizes the Aggies’ unity, loyalty, and willingness to serve when called upon to do so.  

However, a renowned sports history writer has called the university’s integrity into question after its athletic department published a near-verbatim copy of the writer’s unpublished biography on Gill, according to a lawsuit brought by the author.  

Nick Wasdin represents author and editor Michael Bynum and his publishing company, Canada Hockey LLC, in a copyright infringement case against a member of the Texas A&M University’s Athletic Department, who, the lawsuit claims, unlawfully published his work.  

The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas , alleges that the named personnel within the A&M Athletic Department, under the direction of department leadership, published and disseminated a draft copy of Bynum’s biography of E. King Gill, which Canada Hockey LLC (d/b/a Epic Sports) had yet to publish, bolstering the university’s title as the Home of the 12th Man and boosting fundraising efforts in the process.  

According to the complaint, after Bynum’s biography on Gill was posted nearly word-for-word on the A&M Athletic Department website, it was then promoted to hundreds of thousands of people via university newsletters and social media, effectively ruining the market for Bynum’s original work.   

“My client devoted significant time to conducting research for, and writing and editing his 12th Man book, including the biography on the original 12th Man, E. King Gill, and in a matter of minutes, his work was taken and given away for free to the exact market that Mr. Bynum intended to sell it in,” said Wasdin. “This has caused real, tangible damage to Mr. Bynum, impacts he is still feeling today.” 
 

The lawsuit seeks to actual and statutory damages for the defendant’s multiple alleged copyright violations. 

Sportsman’s Warehouse Hit with Class Action Lawsuit for Violating Customer Data Privacy

A group of consumers are taking legal action against online retailer Sportsman’s Warehouse for knowingly disseminating their personal information to a third-party company, AddShoppers. One class member requested his data from AddShoppers, which showed he was unwittingly tracked by several companies, including Sportsman’s, for years despite never providing personal information to the retailers – a clear violation of numerous data privacy laws.  

Dwoskin Wasdin, Stueve Siegel Hanson and Parsons Behle & Latimer are pursuing a class action lawsuit against Sportsman’s Warehouse for an alleged breach of California privacy laws. The suit claims that Sportsman’s customer data was shared with the web tracking company AddShoppers, despite customers being unaware that their data was being collected.  

The complaint, filed in the United States District Court of Utah, argues that Sportsman’s participates in a “data co-op" operated by AddShoppers, which illegally collects customer data to serve targeted advertisements to consumers.  

AddShoppers is a digital commerce platform that partners with retailers, like Sportsman’s, to provide analytics into website activity with the overall goal of increasing revenue and traffic.   

According to the complaint, AddShoppers’ terms and conditions mention each retailer it partners with grants the organization a license to collect their customers data. However, the reality is that not a single customer using these retail sites is aware of AddShoppers presence, nor granted them authorization to gather their individual data via third-party tracking cookies. At a minimum, AddShoppers collects sensitive information such as the users name, address, payment information and email address.  

“The level of data sharing that tracking services like AddShoppers conduct is the modern-day version of wiretapping. Once they have your information, they can use that third-party tracking cookie to monitor your browsing activity across the internet, without you ever knowing it’s there,” said Eric Dwoskin. “As technology continues to grow and change, data privacy remains a priority concern for users. Not only did Sportsman’s violate customer trust, but they also violated major privacy laws that are in place to protect consumers.” 

The lawsuit seeks to recover damages incurred by Sportsman’s customers nationwide due to the company’s misleading tracking practices.    

Consumers Take Action Against TD Bank for Violating Federal Privacy Laws

A group of consumers is taking legal action against TD Bank, alleging that the bank violated a multitude of privacy laws by unlawfully collecting and disclosing their sensitive information without consent for its own financial and advertising gains.  

According to the complaint, filed by Dwoskin Wasdin, Carella Byrne Cecchi Brody & Agenllo, and Stueve Siegel Hanson in the United States District Court of New Jersey, TD Bank tracks and records customer interactions on its banking website, including when customers log in and access confidential account information, such as their financial records.  

The complaint alleges that TD Bank violated federal and state privacy laws by sharing this information with third-party companies via a hidden tracking code created by Meta, called the Meta Pixel, which the companies then used for marketing and advertising purposes.  

The data shared with Meta includes personally identifiable information tied to customers’ accounts, including information related to their TD Bank products and credit card applications.  

“In a time where data privacy is paramount, we cannot afford to let financial institutions like TD Bank take advantage of consumers,” said Eric Dwoskin. “This is a clear violation of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act because TD Bank’s users were given zero notification of the data tracking, or any option to opt-out from the process altogether. We see more and more of these large-scale data privacy complaints come across our desk, and each one fuels our growing concern about how we can continue protecting the rights of people and their private information from being sold to companies for the sheer purpose of financial gain.” 

The lawsuit seeks to recover damages incurred by TD Bank consumers nationwide as a result of the company’s deceptive business practices and hold it accountable for those practices. 

Emerging Snack Brand Takes Action Against Faulty Investor

The day after emerging snack brand Brass Roots appeared on Shark Tank, its founders received an offer from an investor seeking a stake in the company. After signing an investment agreement, the investor ghosted Brass Roots, leaving the company in a precarious financial position.  

Nick Wasdin represents A&C Snacks, Incorporated (A&C) in a breach of contract lawsuit against an investor who failed to uphold an investment agreement, resulting in significant losses and damages to the company.  

The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, claims that the investment agreement was prompted by the defendant after A&C’s brand, Brass Roots, was featured on the popular reality show Shark Tank. Brass Roots sells Sacha Inchi seeds, often referred to as “Incan Peanuts”, a product with higher nutritional benefits than the average tree nut, and a more allergen-friendly alternative to some varieties of traditional tree nuts.  

According to the complaint, the defendant contacted A&C’s founder one day after the company’s appearance on Shark Tank, stating that he wanted to invest in the company.  

The lawsuit outlines the terms of the investment agreement, which required the defendant to make four separate investment commitments starting in June 2023. The suit goes on to detail the defendant’s subsequent failure to make those four investment commitments, which A&C depended on for its ongoing operations and sustainability.  

“The defendant sought out my client for an investment opportunity, and in response, my client professionally negotiated and executed an investment agreement that would benefit both parties,” said Wasdin, the attorney representing A&C. “However, the defendant failed to show my client the same level of respect, becoming unreachable, evading his investment commitments, and ultimately putting my client in an unstable financial position after years spent building the brand from the ground up.” 

The lawsuit seeks to recover monetary compensation for all losses incurred due to the breach of the investment agreement and hold the defendant accountable for breaching the contract. 

Manufacturing Company Hit with Class Action Suit for Selling Defective Bike Parts

Shimano, a Japanese manufacturing company, allegedly produced and distributed defective bicycle parts to its customers for years. Those customers are calling upon the company for answers – and justice. 

Dwoskin Wasdin attorneys Eric Dwoskin and Nick Wasdin, alongside attorneys from Dicello Leavitt, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, and Larson, represent a group of consumers in a class action lawsuit against Shimano. 

The complaint, filed in the United States District Court of the Central District of California, alleges that Shimano sold and distributed defective cranksets to leading bicycle manufacturers, such as Trek Bicycle Corporation, Giant Bicycle and more. The crankset is a key component to the overall functionality and safety of a bike as it controls the bike's ability to pedal.  

The complaint argues that defective cranksets can malfunction during use and cause crashes resulting in significant personal injury to the cyclist. 

As detailed in the suit, Shimano denied the existence of the defect for years, finally issuing a recall in September 2023 after repeated complaints by users. The recall solution, as outlined in the complaint, suggested that only customers whose cranksets show signs of bonding separation or delamination during an inspection by a bicycle dealership can be provided with a free and professionally installed replacement.  

“Those who ride bikes with these potentially dangerous parts but have not yet seen signs of their defectiveness are left in an incredibly frightening position,” said Dwoskin. “They are haunted by and continuously anticipating the day they crash and meet Shimano’s absurd qualifications for a replacement bracket, an event that could cause serious personal injury. It’s time we held manufacturers like Shimano accountable for the risk defects like these can pose to everyone’s safety.” 

The suit seeks to award class members nationwide for relief incurred by the use of these defective cranksets and hold Shimano and its retailers responsible for the production and distribution of those defective parts.  

Korean-based Beauty Brand Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over “Waterproof” Sunscreen

Eric Dwoskin and Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP lead a class action lawsuit against Able C&C, a Korean-based beauty brand that sells under the trade name MISSHA, for marketing its sunscreen as “waterproof.” FDA regulations prohibit marketing sunscreen as “waterproof” because there is no such thing as “waterproof” sunscreen; all sunscreen washes off in the water eventually.  

According to the complaint filed in federal court in New Jersey, MISSHA deceptively advertises its sunscreen products to increase traction in the billion-dollar sun protection market, deceiving consumers who bought into the company’s false claims about its products’ ability to block all UV rays in the process.  

“Consumers place their trust in brands, expecting their products to perform as marketed. MISSHA betrayed that trust by preying on consumers’ fears about sun protection to sell its products, even though its claims of being ‘waterproof’ and able to ‘block all UV rays’ were impossible,” said Dwoskin. “What’s worse is that when confronted with concerns regarding the legitimacy of its claims, MISSHA made zero efforts to address them.” 

The lawsuit seeks damages and other relief caused by MISSHA’s false advertising.   

International Travel Network Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Wrongfully Denied Refunds

A New York couple booked a trip with the popular travel agency International Travel Network (ITN) and paid a premium for trip cancellation coverage. When an emergency arose and the husband needed immediate surgery, ITN refused to refund the cost of the wife’s ticket, even though the terms of the travel protection product expressly cover refunds for travel companions.   

Dwoskin Wasdin and Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith lead a class action lawsuit against ITN for failing to uphold the terms of its Travel Care Service Agreement and for systemically denying covered refunds to consumers while misleading them about its travel insurance policies.  

The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court of Delaware, alleges that ITN, a travel agency that sells airline tickets and travel packages, charges a premium fee costing nearly double the industry average to add trip protection coverage but fails to provide refunds for companion cancellations that are covered under the policy.  

According to the complaint, ITN’s failure to pay companion refunds under the terms of the Travel Care Service Agreement is widespread and systemic. Other consumers affected by this conduct have filed complaints with the Better Business Bureau, citing that they only received a fraction of the refunds they were owed under ITN’s trip protection plan. 

The suit asserts a breach of contract claim for ITN’s failure to pay companion refunds, and consumer protection claims for ITN’s deceptive and unlawful marketing practices related to its travel insurance policies.  

“Consumers rely on travel protection plans to provide peace of mind when planning their trips, expecting transparency and fairness from agencies like International Travel Network,” said Nick Wasdin. “It’s alarming to see a travel agency as large as this one deny refunds that are clearly outlined in the travel protection agreement. Not only does this betray the level of trust customers place on travel insurance providers, but it raises concerns about ITN’s broader business practices.”