Consumer Fraud

Overview

Kirby McInerney consistently delivers financial relief for our clients in consumer fraud litigation, including against big tech. Our attorneys have nearly two decades of experience defending the interests of institutional clients, businesses, and individual consumers in cases of commercial fraud in a variety of market sectors, including technology, logistics, insurance, telecommunications, real estate, and others.

We employ innovative techniques to obtain recoveries for defrauded consumers, and our policy of conducting consumer class action litigation on a contingency basis makes legal remedies available to our clients that would otherwise be financially infeasible. The firm strives to protect the interests of consumers against the risks of corporate fraud while simultaneously prompting positive change in the way that companies do business.

Experience

May v. Google et al., 24-cv-01314 (N.D. Cal.).

Counsel in a consumer class action alleging that for nearly a decade Google has knowingly kept stolen money from victims of gift card scams who purchased Google Play gift cards. Damages total in the millions of dollars.

Reynolds v. Beneficial National Bank,
No. 98-cv-02178 (N.D. Ill.).

Co-lead counsel in a class action against H&R Block and HSBC (as successor to Beneficial National Bank) for the benefit of almost two million taxpayers who had obtained Refund Anticipation Loans (“RALs”). The case alleged that H&R Block and Beneficial National Bank made misrepresentations and charged people undisclosed fees on RALs. After years of litigation and appeals, the case resulted in a settlement of $39 million in cash.

Cardoso v. IDT Corporation,
No. 03-cv-00375 (D.N.J.).

Lead counsel in a class action litigation against IDT Corporation, IDT Telecom, Inc., and Union Telecard Alliance, LLC (collectively, “IDT”). The case alleged that IDT failed to inform consumers sufficiently about the applicable rates and charges for its prepaid and rechargeable calling cards, and thereby violated various state consumer protection acts and other laws. The case resulted in a settlement of up to $20 million in Refund PINs (representing free domestic telephone minutes), $2 million in charitable donations, and additional relief consisting of enhanced disclosures of calling card charges.

Apple Gift Card Litigation,
No. 20-cv-04812 (N.D. Cal.).

Serving as co-lead counsel to a class of consumers who were victims of gift card scams and from whom Apple allegedly withholds funds. KM Partner Anthony Fata developed and filed the first complaint in this proprietary case. Drawing on his financial crimes expertise, Mr. Fata developed the factual theories underpinning the case, helped to organize counsel, and led and is currently co-leading efforts on behalf of the class. This matter has resulted in a settlement of $35 million for the class.

Gelb v. AT&T,
No. 90-cv-07212 (S.D.N.Y.).

Gelb v. AT&T, No. 90-cv-07212 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). Landmark decision regarding filed rate doctrine leading to injunctive relief.

Bartold v. Glendale Federal Bank,
Nos. G020529, G021899 (4th Cir.).

Bartold v. Glendale Federal Bank, Nos. G020529, G021899 (4th Cir. 2000). Representation of California homeowners. Ruling on behalf of hundreds of thousands of California homeowners establishing banks’ duties regarding title reconveyance.

In re MCI Non-Subscriber Telephone Rates Litigation,
MDL No. 1275 (S.D. Ill.).

In re MCI Non-Subscriber Telephone Rates Litigation, MDL No. 1275 (S.D. Ill. 2001). Chairman of steering committee. $88 million settlement.

Rothstein v. GMAC Mortgage LLC,
No. 12-cv-03412 (S.D.N.Y.).

Rothstein v. GMAC Mortgage LLC, No. 12-cv-03412 (S.D.N.Y.). Lead counsel. $13 million settlement against GMAC Mortgage LLC in In re Residential Capital, LLC, No. 12-12020 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2016).

News

08/02/2024 | Firm News KM obtains $35 million settlement of Apple gift cards consumer class action

Kirby McInerney LLP, alongside Co-Lead Counsel Scott+Scott LLP and Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, reached a $35 million settlement with Apple Inc. The settlement provides refunds to consumers who were tricked by third-party scammers into buying Apple iTunes and AppStore gift cards and providing the codes to the scammers under false pretenses.

11/13/2023 | Firm News Kirby McInerney Recognized in Chambers Dispute Resolution Regional Spotlight 2024 Guide

Kirby McInerney is proud to report that it has been ranked in the 2024 edition of Chambers Regional Spotlight for Dispute Resolution in New York.

01/31/2020 | Articles and TV Chief Justice launches report on litigation funding and class actions

Kirby McInerney Partner Meghan Summers recently presented a report before the Chief Justice of Ireland. The report, which Ms. Summers co-authored, focuses on how class actions could be implemented in Ireland.

02/20/2019 | Articles and TV Class-action lawsuit seeks damages for county ‘discriminatory conduct’ in tax assesment

Three Nassau residents have filed a class-action lawsuit against the county on behalf of non-white property owners who they contend were forced to bear the property tax burden of wealthier, white communities due to county policies beginning in 2010. Kirby McInerney represents the plaintiffs.

10/01/2013 | Articles and TV Force-Placed Suit Against GMAC May Proceed, Judge Rules

A lawsuit that accused GMAC Mortgage of taking kickbacks and overcharging homeowners on force-placed insurance policies has survived a motion to dismiss. GMAC’s mortgage unit will have to face a class action brought by homeowners whose properties it serviced, a U.S. District Court judge for the Southern District of New York ruled Monday.

09/30/2013 | Articles and TV GMAC Force-Placed Insurance Class Action Gets Judge’s OK

A New York federal judge on Monday upheld a racketeering class action targeting kickbacks Balboa Insurance Co. allegedly paid to GMAC Mortgage LLC for force-placing hazard insurance policies, saying the lender may have gouged borrowers when demanding reimbursement for coverage.

Contacts

Anthony F. Fata

Partner

Robert J. Gralewski

Partner

Featured Cases

We are currently serving as lead counsel to a class of small package delivery companies defrauded by Amazon under its Delivery Service Partners (DSP) Program. The case alleges that the DSP program represents an unlawful scheme to shield Amazon from its responsibilities to DSPs, their drivers, and the public; minimize the risk of unionization among drivers; foist costs that Amazon would otherwise bear as an employer of drivers onto DSPs despite the fact that the drivers are functionally Amazon employees; and limit Amazon’s delivery costs by imposing policies and rules intended to prevent DSPs from achieving performance-related payments.

You may share a link to this page on any of the sites listed below or send link via email: