StarKist Tuna

October 2018: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s approval of the settlement.

October and November 2016: The class representative and several objectors filed Notices of Appeal regarding the approval of the settlement. Click on the links below to see some of them.

September 2016: A federal judge granted final approval of the settlement. Based on the number of claims filed, class members who chose to receive vouchers will receive approximately $4.43 for each claim and class members who chose to receive cash will receive approximately $1.97 for each claim.

March 2016: After the parties amended the settlement to narrow the scope of the release, plaintiffs filed another motion for final approval of the settlement.

February 2016: A federal judge denied the motion for final approval of the settlement for two reasons. First, the judge found that the notice was inadequate because it was sent before the parties changed the scope of the release. Second, the judge found that the scope of the release was too broad because it released claims not mentioned in the complaint.

July 2015: A federal judge preliminarily approved the settlement of this false advertising lawsuit. A final fairness hearing is scheduled for December 17, 2015. For more information, go to www.tunalawsuit.com.

May 2015: Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of a $12 million settlement ($8 million in cash and $4 million in vouchers) of this class-action lawsuit. According to the proposed settlement terms, class members may choose to receive a cash payment or a voucher. Class members may file a claim to receive $25 in cash or $50 in vouchers, subject to a pro rata dilution if the total amount of claims exceeds the available funds. The company has not agreed to make any changes to how it fills its tuna cans. A preliminary approval hearing is scheduled for May 28, 2015.

February 2013: A class-action lawsuit was filed against Starkist Co. for, among other things, falsely claiming that its cans of tuna contain an adequate amount of tuna for a 5-ounce can when, according to plaintiffs, the cans are substantially underfilled. (Hendricks v. Starkist Co., Case No. 13-cv-00729, N.D. Cal.)

For more of TINA.org’s coverage of slack-filled packaging, click here.

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

You know when you buy a big bag of chips, and you’re all psyched for a feast, and then it turns out there are like, three chips in the bag? That bag is slack filled.

Tags: ,



Comments are closed.

Back to Top ↑
  • Search Class-Action Tracker



  • Recent Class Actions

  • The Class-Action Tracker is intended to notify consumers about false advertising class-action lawsuits filed around the country, but does not necessarily reflect TINA.org’s opinion with respect to the lawsuits or disposition of the cases

  • Sign Up for E-mail Updates