Starkist Tuna Class Action Lawsuit Settlement

A recent settlement in a Starkist tuna class action lawsuit has resolved an issue that’s roiling the seafood industry. The plaintiffs claimed that Starkist artificially inflates the price of its canned tuna. Although Starkist denies the claim, it has agreed to settle the case with the plaintiff. The lawsuit claims that Starkist underfilled some five-ounce cans of tuna.

The Starkist lawsuit, which was filed in 2015, was filed to demand compensation from the company for tainted seafood.

While the plaintiffs did not receive a monetary award, the plaintiffs received a $5.03 coupon and $50 worth of free tuna certificates. The coupons are valid for two years and must be redeemed within a year. However, the settlement is not final and the court has not yet decided how the settlement will be distributed.

The plaintiffs sought to recover up to $5.03 in cash and $4.38 in vouchers. The cash payments were made via PayPal, and the coupons were sent by mail. The class action was initially filed in 2013, and it is still pending in the courts. The deadline for submitting a class action lawsuit against StarKist has passed. The deadline for completing the lawsuit is November 20th, 2015. However, the starkest tuna class action settlement is a significant win for consumers who have been harmed by underfilled canned tuna.

The Starkist tuna class action lawsuit was settled four years ago.

The settlement included $5.03 in cash and $2.38 in coupons. The coupons will arrive in the mail. The Starkist tuna class action lawsuit has impacted 2.5 million people. However, despite the recent settlement, Starkist continues to deny the allegations. The final decision will be finalized by the courts. The next step is to file an appeal to the Supreme Court.

After the class action lawsuits were filed in 2014 and 2015, StarKist settled the cases by paying $2.2 million in cash and $4.03 in vouchers. As the company was one of the largest tuna companies in the US, this settlement has impacted many consumers. And as a result, the companies’ sales have decreased. This is a major win for consumers who were harmed by underfilled tuna.

In the Starkist tuna class action lawsuit, consumers were able to receive $25 in cash or a $50 gift card.

The company is also willing to pay a $1 billion settlement to consumers who were cheated by Starkist’s false claims. In the case of consumers, the settlement was very favorable for the plaintiffs, who will receive at least half of their money back in the form of a check in the mail.

The lawsuit was filed over three decades ago. At the time, the Supreme Court had already decided that the plaintiffs had the right to file a lawsuit in the US. The court ruled that StarKist’s prices were uncompetitive and therefore, they should be compensated. The trial is still ongoing, but the plaintiffs have won the case. Moreover, the company is now facing a class-action lawsuit.

The lawsuit against StarKist was settled in December 2015.

Despite a large number of claims, the company had to settle for a lower amount. But the settlement, in this case, has been less than favorable for the plaintiffs. While the settlement offers $2.38 in cash, the plaintiffs were still only awarded a single dollar each. The amount of cash was less than what they expected. However, the settlement is a significant win for the plaintiffs.

The Starkist tuna class-action lawsuit was filed in 2015 in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The case involved the misrepresentation of the contents of the canned tuna. The lead plaintiff’s attorney explained how his firm got the case. He told the court that the lead plaintiff’s lawyer had been inspired by a news story about a settlement in another Starkist tuna class action. After investigating the ingredients, a lawsuit was filed.

In addition to a $25 cash award, the Starkist tuna class-action lawsuit also involved a $10 million fine.

The proposed settlement included a $20 million cash award and $50 in tuna vouchers. In addition, the proposed settlement was subject to pro-rata dilution, which means that the more people who sign up, the lower the payout. In the end, the $12 million settlement was found adequate because the plaintiffs’ case was “relatively weak” and “highly difficult” to prove.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *