Mcafee class action

Mcafee class action

Mcafee: protect data where it live

Description of the Case: McAfee violated some California laws and common law, according to the plaintiffs, with its autorenewal policies and advertising with discounts and reference rates.
All persons in the United States who (1.) paid McAfee for the automatic renewal of a subscription license for any McAfee program (2.) between January 10, 2010 and February 10, 2015, and (3.) whose first auto-renewal payment was at a price greater than the price paid to McAfee for the initial subscription license are included in the “Auto-Renewal Class.”
All persons in the United States (1) who purchased or manually renewed a subscription license for any McAfee program from McAfee between January 10, 2010 and February 10, 2015, and (3) whose subscription license was initially purchased or manually renewed at a reduced price are included in the “Reference Price Class.”

Mcafee center stage: mcafee active response (mar

A company’s future can be jeopardized by class actions. Losing will result in millions of dollars in penalties as well as injunctions that can make potential business practices impossible. For clients who want the best protection against these attacks, McAfee & Taft is the firm to call.
The class action defense practice at McAfee & Taft is a pillar of the firm’s elite commercial litigation practice. For clients in the manufacturing, oil and gas, mining, financial services, healthcare, pharmaceutical and medical device, automobile, telecommunications, retailing, distribution, transportation, and construction industries, our litigators have successfully managed several complex statewide and national class actions in state and federal courts.
Our attorneys defend businesses and individuals against class action lawsuits alleging violations of state and federal deceptive trade practices laws, unfair competition laws, the Fair Labor Standards Act, Oklahoma’s Minimum Wage Act, Title VII age and gender discrimination laws, the Securities Act of 1933, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and other state and federal consumer protection laws.

Hearing: h.r. 1927, the “fairness in class action litigation

WHAT IS THE Intention OF THIS CASE? Two customers have filed class-action litigation alleging that McAfee participated in deceptive practices regarding auto-renewal fees and the promotion of discounts and comparison rates. McAfee vehemently denies any wrongdoing. The agreement does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing.
WHO ARE THE PARTICIPANTS? If you live in the United States and were charged by McAfee for the auto-renewal of any McAfee or Intel Security program between January 10, 2010 and February 10, 2015; (2) your first auto-renewal payment was higher than the price you paid McAfee for your initial software subscription; and (3) the auto-renewal charge was not completely refunded to you, you are in the “Auto-Renewal Class.”
If you live in the United States and: (1) purchased or manually renewed a subscription for any McAfee or Intel Security program from McAfee between January 10, 2010 and February 10, 2015, and (2) charged a reduced price for that purchase or manual renewal, you are in the “Reference Price Class.”

Dave zirin: why the new class action lawsuit terrifies the

Two class action cases against McAfee have been settled, alleging that the firm engaged in deceptive practices about auto-renewal charges and the promotion of discounts and comparison rates.
The McAfee Auto Renewal Settlement affects two “Classes” of McAfee customers: the “Auto-Renewal Class” and the “Reference Price Class.”
You’ll find out which Class you’re in on the notice you get in the mail or by email.
Plaintiffs in the two class action cases argue that McAfee’s auto-renewal policies and advertising with discounts and reference rates violated California statutes and common law.
McAfee allegedly charged customers enrolled in its software “auto-renewal” program higher prices than it charges other customers for identical products, in violation of its contractual obligations and contrary to its express representations about its auto-renewal program, according to named plaintiffs Sam Williamson and Samantha Kirby.

Posted in m