American Antitrust Institute and Cohen Milstein announce outstanding contributions to antitrust scholarship

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In recognition of their outstanding contribution to antitrust scholarship, the authors listed below have been selected as recipients of the 22nd Annual Jerry S. Cohen Memorial Fund Writing Award:

  • Miguel Antón, Professor of Financial Management, IESE Business School
  • Florian Ederer, Allen and Kelli Questrom Professor in Markets, Public Policy & Law, Boston University
  • Mireia Giné, Professor and Head of the Financial Management Department, IESE Business School
  • Martin C. Schmalz, Professor of Finance, Economics, and Real Estate, University of Oxford Saïd Business School

The award will be presented during the gala luncheon at the American Antitrust Institute’s 25th Annual Policy Conference on May 22, 2024 at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

The authors will be honored for their article:

“Common Ownership, Competition, and Top Management Incentives,” 131 Journal of Political Economy 1294 (2023): The authors demonstrate that altered managerial incentives can serve as the mechanism that connects common ownership to softer competition. The predictions generated by their model help explain the existing empirical evidence on the anticompetitive effects of common ownership that thus far has lacked a theoretical explanation. The authors also provide additional empirical support for the previously untested prediction that higher firm-level common ownership leads to less performance-sensitive incentives for CEOs. The article meaningfully advances our understanding of the theory of anticompetitive effects from common ownership by offering a compelling response to the primary criticism of the theory’s detractors: that there is no realistic mechanism by which common ownership could impact firm-level decisions.

The four winners will share the $11,000 prize. Each winner will also receive a specially commissioned and inscribed artwork by Lori Milstein, artist and daughter of Herb Milstein, co-founder of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

This year’s award selection committee consisted of Zachary Caplan, Shareholder at Berger Montague; Warren Grimes, Professor of Law at Southwestern Law School; John Kirkwood, Professor of Law at Seattle University School of Law; Roger Noll, Professor Emeritus of Economics at Stanford University; Leslie Marx, Professor of Economics at Duke Fuqua School of Business; Robert Lande, Professor of Law at University of Baltimore School of Law; Daniel H. Silverman, Partner at Cohen Milstein; and Daniel A. Small, Of Counsel at Cohen Milstein.

About the Award

The Jerry S. Cohen Memorial Fund Writing Award was created through a trust established in memory of Jerry S. Cohen, an outstanding trial lawyer and antitrust scholar. The award is administered by the law firm he founded, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

The award honors the best antitrust writing published during the prior year that is consistent with the values that animated Jerry S. Cohen’s professional life — a genuine concern for economic justice, the dispersal of economic power, effective limitations upon economic power, and the vigorous enforcement of the antitrust laws.

About Cohen Milstein

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the causes of real people – workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers – working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good.

About the American Antitrust Institute

The American Antitrust Institute (AAI) is an independent, nonprofit organization devoted to promoting competition that protects consumers, businesses, and society. AAI serves the public through research, education, and advocacy on the benefits of competition and the use of antitrust enforcement as a vital component of national and international competition policy.

CITGO Allegedly Imposed “Marriage Penalty” on Joint and Survivor Annuity Recipients in Its Pension Plans

CHICAGO – Today, a federal judge wholly denied CITGO’s motion for summary judgment on three of four counts, and also partially denied the motion on the fourth count, allowing a proposed class action lawsuit regarding CITGO’s pension benefits to move forward to trial. The lawsuit alleges that that the company violated the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) by failing to properly calculate joint and survivor annuity (“JSA”) benefits for retired employees and imposing a “marriage penalty” that reduced their monthly pension payments.

Specifically, plaintiffs claim that prior to 2018, two CITGO pension plans utilized inaccurate mortality tables (from the 1970s) to determine the value of JSAs, resulting in married retirees consistently receiving less than the actuarial equivalent of a single-life annuity (“SLA”) as required under ERISA. The lawsuit seeks to recover the underpayments, and to reform the CITGO Plans to fully comply with protections afforded by ERISA to pension plan participants and their beneficiaries.

With more than 1,700 participants and beneficiaries in the proposed class receiving JSAs, the estimated financial exposure to CITGO could well exceed $30 million.

“We are very pleased by the judge’s ruling that our clients’ claims against CITGO may proceed to trial,” said Michelle C. Yau, chair of Cohen Milstein’s Employee Benefits/ERISA practice. “Married retirees and their beneficiaries deserve to receive accurate pension payments after years of hard work and should not be shortchanged or subjected to a ‘marriage penalty.’”

In its ruling, the court rejected CITGO’s arguments that the lawsuit should be dismissed on the basis of the statute of limitations, finding that all three plaintiffs could proceed with their actuarial equivalence claims in Counts 1 through 3, and that two of the three plaintiffs could proceed with their breach of fiduciary duty claim in Count 4. Further, the court rejected CITGO’s argument that the Plaintiffs should have exhausted administrative remedies rather than filing suit in federal court, stating that it was “not persuaded that requiring exhaustion would serve any useful purpose in this case.”   Finally, the court also held that Plaintiffs’ claims were sufficiently meritorious to proceed to trial and supported by expert testimony.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf a proposed class of retirees in the CITGO Petroleum Corporation Salaried Employees Pension Plan and the CITGO Petroleum Corporation Hourly Employees Pension Plan who are receiving a joint and survivor annuity.  Class certification is currently pending.

The case, Urlaub et al v. Citgo Petroleum Corporation et al. (N.D. Ill.), was filed on August 3, 2021 in the United States District Court of the Northern District of Illinois.

This is one of six such cases the firm has recently filed against the largest companies in the U.S., addressing similar claims, including against AT&T, IBM, Intel, Luxottica, and Southern Company.

###

About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the causes of real people – workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers – working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good.

Media Contact: cohenmilstein@berlinrosen.com

Pending Final Approval, Precedent-Setting Injunctive Relief Achieved.

BOSTON, MA – On April 25, 2024, the Honorable Angel Kelley for the United States District Court of Massachusetts allowed a $2.275 million settlement on behalf of Massachusetts housing voucher recipients to move forward, certifying the settlement classes and directing notice to be sent to class members. The Court will hold a final approval hearing in November. The settlement, if finally approved, will resolve a lawsuit against SafeRent Solutions, a national tenant screening provider formerly known as CoreLogic Rental Property Solutions, claiming that SafeRent’s algorithmic tenant screening program (the “SafeRent Score”) disproportionately harmed housing voucher recipients, including Black and Hispanic individuals, under Massachusetts law protecting individuals based on their source of income and race. In July 2023, the Court denied SafeRent’s motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ Fair Housing Act (FHA) and Massachusetts Discrimination Law claims.

The pending settlement provides for significant injunctive relief to tenant applicants who rely on vouchers and may be subjected to SafeRent tenant screening. It would require a more robust evaluation of prospective housing voucher tenants’ eligibility for housing based on their full record rather than relying on a score derived though an algorithm. If SafeRent develops another tenant screening score it wishes to use after five years, it would have to be validated by an independent third-party organization agreed to by the Plaintiffs. This injunctive relief would establish precedent for the tenant screening industry.

“On behalf of housing voucher holders in Massachusetts, we are very pleased with this outcome,” stated Todd Kaplan at Greater Boston Legal Services. “It gives Massachusetts rental applicants who have been unfairly subjected to SafeRent’s tenant screening algorithm immediate relief and it should protect voucher holders from any future discriminatory assessment.”

“Federal and state housing voucher programs were established to give recipients, who are disproportionately Black and Hispanic renters, more choice in where they live. The changes SafeRent has agreed to make are key to ensuring the original intention of the nation’s voucher programs, helping to erase historic discrimination in the housing markets,” said Brian Corman, a partner at Cohen Milstein, who leads the firm’s fair housing litigation efforts and helped negotiate the settlement.

One of the central claims in the lawsuit was that SafeRent’s algorithm did not consider the financial benefits of housing vouchers in assigning SafeRent Scores. Specifically, when a housing voucher is used, on average over 73% of the monthly rental payment is paid by public housing authorities directly to housing providers.

“This is a precedent-setting settlement, a case of first impression for the home rental and property management industries given the pervasive use of algorithms in assessing tenant worthiness,” stated Christine E. Webber, co-chair of Cohen Milstein’s Civil Rights & Employment practice. “Decision-making algorithms, such as the ones at issue here, are often opaque. Vendors who develop these algorithms are not willing to disclose all the data they consider or how the data is weighted in score modeling. This is gravely concerning to fair housing, employment, and civil rights advocates as potentially discriminatory bias can be easily coded into automated decision-making platforms. The ability to hold such vendors accountable is essential for full enforcement of the civil rights laws.”

On January 9, 2023, the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development filed a statement of interest in this case to ensure “the correct interpretation and application of the FHA’s pleading standard for disparate impact claims, including where the use of algorithms may perpetuate housing discrimination.”

“The use of algorithms to evaluate housing eligibility must be scrutinized to ensure that individuals and families are not improperly denied opportunities to access housing or subject to discrimination. There is no evidence that credit scores are predictive of tenants’ ability to pay rent and there is even less justification to rely on them in this case where government-backed vouchers pay a substantial majority of the rent each month,” said Shennan Kavanagh, Director of Litigation at the National Consumer Law Center. 

In addition to certifying the class action for settlement purposes, the preliminary settlement approval also appoints the plaintiffs Mary Louis and Monica Douglas as Settlement Class Representatives and Greater Boston Legal Services, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, and the National Consumer Law Center as Settlement Class Counsel. 

This is the second artificial intelligence or algorithm-based FHA discrimination lawsuit Cohen Milstein has brought against SafeRent Solutions, which previously operated as CoreLogic Rental Property Solutions. Cohen Milstein is currently litigating Connecticut Fair Housing Center, et al. v. CoreLogic Rental Property Solutions, Case No. 3:18-cv-00705 (D. Conn.), in partnership with Connecticut Fair Housing Center and the National Housing Law Project.  On November 24, 2023, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an amicus brief with the Second Circuit on behalf of the plaintiffs in that case.

###

About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the causes of real people—workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers—working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good. We have litigated landmark civil rights and employment disputes before the highest courts in the nation and continue to actively shape civil rights and employment law in the United States.

About Greater Boston Legal Services 

Greater Boston Legal Services helps more than 10,000 low-income families and individuals solve their civil (non-criminal) legal problems. We represent our clients in court, at appeals, in hearings before administrative law judges, and with advice and paperwork, both as individuals and through partnerships with community organizations. We have a special focus on “impact litigation.”

National Consumer Law Center

Since 1969, the nonprofit National Consumer Law Center® (NCLC®) has used its expertise in consumer law and energy policy to work for consumer justice and economic security for low-income and other disadvantaged people, including older adults, in the United States. NCLC’s expertise includes policy analysis and advocacy; consumer law and energy publications; litigation; expert witness services, and training and advice for advocates. NCLC works with nonprofit and legal services organizations, private attorneys, policymakers, and federal and state government and courts across the nation to stop exploitive practices, help financially stressed families build and retain wealth, and advance economic fairness.

Resolves fraud allegations regarding the COVID-19 Waiver Program

PHILADELPHIA, PA– National plaintiffs firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll announced today that the United States and the State of California reached a $7 million settlement with ReNew Health Group LLC, ReNew Health Consulting Services LLC and its owner-CEO and its COO to resolve False Claims Act allegations filed by Cohen Milstein’s whistleblower clients.  ReNew Health, which owns and operates dozens of nursing facilities throughout California, allegedly submitted millions of dollars of false claims to Medicare and California Medicaid under a COVID-19 waiver program beginning at the start of the pandemic in March 2020.

“This settlement is a reminder about the important role whistleblowers play in rooting out fraud in the healthcare industry,” said Gary Azorsky, chair of Cohen Milstein’s Whistleblower practice. “This case would not have been possible without the brave individuals who came forward to report improper Medicare claims.”

“Our clients are persons of integrity who stepped forward and brought an end to ReNew Health’s practice of overcharging Medicare and Medicaid,” said Ray Sarola, counsel for the whistleblowers and also a member of Cohen Milstein’s Whistleblower practice. “We thank the United States and the State of California for their diligent and thorough investigation of our clients’ allegations and for protecting taxpayers and government health care programs by recovering these substantial overpayments.”

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) took emergency measures to free up hospital beds and temporarily waived the requirement that a person stay in a hospital for three days before Medicare Part A would cover skilled care in a nursing home that qualified as a skilled nursing facility (SNF). This meant that if a person who had Medicare Part A needed skilled care, the person could move directly into a nursing home that qualified as a SNF to receive that care – or if the person already lived in a nursing home that qualified as a SNF, the person could remain there and receive that care. The nursing home could then submit Medicare Part A claims on behalf of the person to get paid for providing that care. CMS also waived the 100-day limit on Medicare Part A coverage of such care under certain circumstances. These waivers expired in May 2023.

The whistleblowers alleged that beginning in March 2020, after learning of CMS’s waivers, ReNew Health submitted false Medicare and Medicaid claims representing that many residents in their nursing homes needed skilled care based on the possibility that they were exposed to COVID-19, in violation of the terms of the COVID-19 waiver program.  Skilled care typically involves the treatment of severe illness or injuries, such as heart attacks, pneumonia, or significant orthopedic issues.

Cohen Milstein was pleased to work on this matter with co-counsel David Brevda of Senior Justice Law Firm and June Hoidal, Chuck Toomajian, and Caleb Marker of Zimmerman Reed LLP.

The federal False Claims Act and its state law equivalents permit private citizens to bring lawsuits on behalf of the government against persons who present false or fraudulent claims for payment under government contracts or programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE, and the FEHB Program. Whistleblowers, like those who brought this lawsuit, are entitled to receive a portion of the proceeds of any settlement or judgment awarded against a defendant.

###

About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the causes of real people – workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers – working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good.

Settlements now total more than $943.25 million.

WASHINGTON, DC– Home sellers have reached a $250 million settlement with HomeServices of America and certain of its subsidiaries, including Long & Foster Companies, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, and HSF Affiliates, LLC, resolving class action claims against one of the nation’s largest residential real estate services companies. Home sellers alleged that the National Association of Realtors (NAR) conspired with HomeServices America and several of the nation’s largest residential real estate brokerage companies to illegally require home sellers to pay buyer broker fees – at an inflated rate – in addition to their own brokers’ commissions.

On October 31, 2023, a jury in Missouri found HomeServices of America, NAR, and Keller Williams liable for conspiring to inflate such commissions and for nearly $1.8 billion in damages. This settlement resolves those claims against HomeServices of America. However, it does not release Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company (BHE) or BHE’s or HomeServices of America’s direct or indirect parents or their officers, directors, and employees from such claims or liabilities.

This settlement is in addition to the $418 million settlement reached with NAR on March 15, 2024, and more than $275.25 million in other settlements reached with Anywhere Real Estate, RE/MAX, and Keller Williams in 2023 and Compass and Real Brokerage Inc. in 2024, bringing total settlements, pending court approval, to more than $943.25 million.

“This is another significant settlement for American home sellers who have been saddled with paying billions in unnecessary commission costs.  This brings us a step closer to resolving this long-running case involving the industry-wide brokers’ commission scheme,” said Benjamin D. Brown, managing partner of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll and co-chair of its Antitrust practice.

In its $418 million settlement against NAR this past March, plaintiffs also achieved extensive industry reforms that will increase transparency and fairness regarding buyer broker commissions, while eliminating requirements that sellers must offer on multiple listing services to pay the commissions of brokers representing the buyers they are negotiating against.

“These settlements will return hundreds of millions of dollars to home sellers and empower both sellers and buyers in the real estate negotiation process.” said Robert A. Braun, a partner in Cohen Milstein’s Antitrust practice. “This is one of the most important transactions in a person’s lifetime. Confidence in the process is critical.”

Moehrl, et al. v. National Association of Realtor (N.D. Ill.) was the first-filed case in 2019, and centers on NAR’s adoption of a mandatory rule, which required a blanket, largely non-negotiable offer of compensation to the buyer broker when listing a property on a multiple listing service (MLS), which are online platforms that real estate brokers and agents use to share listings. The vast majority of MLSs are affiliated with NAR and required to follow NAR rules.

The case, which was subsequently followed by the filing of Burnett, et al. v. National Association of Realtors, et al. (W.D. Mo.), alleged that those rules incentivize buyer brokers to avoid showing their clients homes where the seller offers a lower commission. This results in sellers offering high and mostly uniform commissions in order to avoid broker steering.

Despite the shrinking role of buyer brokers over the years – caused by advances in technology, including the internet and public access to listings – buyer brokers’ commissions have remained artificially inflated. On average, home sellers overpay such commissions by thousands of dollars on any given transaction.

Burnett was the first of the two cases to go to trial, resulting in the $1.8 billion jury trial verdict in October 2023. Umpa v. National Association of Realtors, et al. (W.D. Mo.) and Gibson, et al. v. National Association of Realtors, et al. (W.D. Mo.) were filed later in 2023. The ongoing settlement process addresses and resolves claims in all four of the class actions.

Plaintiffs are represented by Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, Susman Godfrey, and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro in Moehrl, et al. v. National Association of Realtor, et al.  (N.D. Ill.) and Umpa v. National Association of Realtors, et al. (W.D. Mo.); and Boulware Law LLC, Ketchmark & McCreight PC, and Williams Dirks Dameron LLC in Burnett, et al. v. National Association of Realtors, et al. (W.D. Mo.) and Gibson, et al. v. National Association of Realtors, et al. (W.D. Mo.)

###

About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the causes of real people – workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers – working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good.

Plaintiffs in Ten States Claim GM Was Aware of Transmission Defects That Pose Safety Risk to Drivers and Passengers

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, purchasers of new and used GM vehicles manufactured between 2015 – 2019 equipped with GM’s 8-speed transmission filed a product defect and consumer protection class action against GM for an alleged defective transmission design of GM’s Hydra-Matic 8L90 transmission or Hydra-Matic 8L45 transmission, which causes vehicles to suddenly lurch forward, shudder, and experience significant delays in acceleration. The action, Ulrich, et al. v. General Motors, et al., No. 2:24-cv-11007, was filed before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

This class action includes ten states and causes of action that were not part of Speerly, et al, v. General Motors, LLC (E.D. Mich.), a class action which was certified as a class on March 20, 2023.

Among other things, plaintiffs in this expanded class action claim that GM not only knew about this pervasive issue but developed a fix for it in 2018 – namely a transmission flush it calls Mod1a. However, GM made the business decision in 2019 to forgo recalling all impacted vehicles (approximately 2 million) to receive this flush, which would have cost GM about $305 per vehicle for a total $592 million, and instead decided to limit the flush to only unsold Cadillacs and trucks in certain states where it expected customers to complain within their warranty. Finally, plaintiffs claim that GM never alerted existing customers of the issue or the fix and only addressed the issue if the customer was under warranty and complained about the shudder.

“GM has breached the trust of millions of Americans by selling defective 8-speed transmission vehicles which they knew to be defective for years, putting profit first and safety last,” said Ted Leopold, partner at Cohen Milstein and court-appointed Lead Counsel for the class. “GM marketed and sold these 8-speed automatic transmission vehicles as having “world-class performance,” lightning-fast and smooth shifting, along with improved fuel efficiency, and instead sold defective vehicles.”

Plaintiffs claimed that the sudden lurching, sudden and/or delayed acceleration, and shuddering presented safety hazards because they would severely affect the driver’s ability to control the car’s speed, acceleration, and deceleration. As an example, these conditions would make it difficult to safely merge into traffic or back out of a garage or driveway. Drivers also reported sudden lurching into intersections when attempting to gradually accelerate from a stopped position and other dangerous driving conditions. Even more troubling, the transmission defects would cause the vehicle to delay downshifting and decelerating when the brakes are depressed.

“GM made poor design choices. It knew of the transmission problems before ever selling the vehicles but hid what it knew – even the solutions to the problems,” stated Doug McNamara, a partner at Cohen Milstein. “Customers who could have benefitted from the Mod1a flush years ago continued to drive with a poorly performing transmission fluid. Now out of warranty, some customers have had to pay for transmission repairs.”

The affected vehicles include Chevrolet Silverado (2015-2019); Chevrolet Colorado (2017-2019); the Chevrolet Corvette (2015-2019); the Chevrolet Camaro (2016-2019); the Cadillac Escalade and Escalade ESV (2015-2019); the Cadillac ATS, ATS-V, CTS, CT6, and CTS-V (2016-2019); the GMC Sierra, Yukon, and Yukon XL, and Yukon Denali XL (2015-2019); and the GMC Canyon (2017-2019).

The 10 states in Ulrich, et al. v. General Motors, et al. include California, Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Missouri, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, and South Dakota.

The 26 states in Speerly, et al, v. General Motors, the certified class action, include Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin.

The plaintiffs are represented by Theodore J. Leopold, Douglas J. McNamara, Karina G. Puttieva, and Madelyn N. Petersen of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll; Robert Gordon, Steven Calamusa, Geoff Stahl, and Rachel Bentley of Gordon & Partners PA; Russell D. Paul and Amy J. Park of Berger Montague PC; Tarek H. Zohdy, Cody R. Padgett, and Laura E. Goolsby of Capstone Law APC; E. Powell Miller, Sharon S. Almonrode, Brian M. Saxe, Emily E. Hughes, and Dennis A. Lienhardt of The Miller Law Firm; Joseph H. Meltzer, Melissa L. Yeates, Lisa M. Port, Tyler S. Graden, Jordan E. Jacobson, and James A. Maro of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP;  Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Gretchen Freeman Cappio, and Ryan McDevitt of Keller Rohrback L.L. P.; and Michael L. Pitt and Beth Rivers of Pitt McGehee Palmer and Rivers.

In addition to Ulrich, et al. v. General Motors, et al., Cohen Milstein and plaintiffs’ counsel continue their litigation in Speerly, et al, v. General Motors, LLC, which was certified as a class action on March 20, 2023. GM quickly appealed that ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Plaintiffs will be filing their opposition brief to the appeal shortly.

###

About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the causes of real people – workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers – working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good.

If you’re interested in participating in this case, please complete our contact form. We will contact you as soon as we can review and process your submission. Submission of this form is for the purposes of inquiry only and does not create a binding attorney/client relationship.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

AT&T SUED OVER DATA BREACH OF 70 MILLION CUSTOMERS PERSONAL INFORMATION

The class action filing accuses AT&T of negligence and breach of contract for failing to investigate the massive data breach for nearly three years.

ATLANTA, GA – On April 3, 2024, two plaintiffs filed a class action suit against AT&T on behalf of themselves and 70 million current and former AT&T customers after an immense data breach leaked their names, addresses, phone numbers, Social Security numbers, PINs, and dates of birth. Upon learning of the breach in August 2021 when hackers auctioned the database of 70 million customers’ personally identifiable information in an online hacking forum, AT&T denied the breach ever occurred and refused to investigate further.

“AT&T failed to protect the data of its current and former customers,” said Douglas McNamara, partner at Cohen Milstein. “If AT&T has the power to require customers to hand over information for the company’s commercial benefit, it bears responsibility for safeguarding it, at a bare minimum.

Only three years later when the contents of the database were publicly leaked on the dark web and independently verified did AT&T admit the breach occurred and began an investigation.

The lawsuit alleges AT&T was negligent in its handling of customer’s sensitive personal information, which it requires from all customers and uses for commercial benefit, by failing to adequately monitor its security measures and act in a timely manner when it discovered the breach. It also alleges AT&T breached its contract with customers based on its assertions in the company privacy notice that it would adequately safeguard users’ sensitive personal data and inform them of a data breach. The privacy notice also stated AT&T would destroy former customers’ data once they were no longer needed, yet 65.4 million customers whose data was leaked were former customers.

Plaintiffs are represented by Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Barnes Law Group, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, and Dicello Levitt LLP.

###

About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the causes of real people – workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers – working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good. For more information visit https://www.cohenmilstein.com

The Settlement Ends The Lawsuit Against Major Long Island Housing Providers Which Alleged Race, Disability and Source of Income Discrimination Against Prospective Tenants

BOHEMIA, NY –Long Island Housing Services (LIHS), Suffolk Independent Living Organization (SILO), and two Long Island residents reached a settlement in a federal lawsuit brought against five companies that own and manage a range of residential complexes across Long Island. The lawsuit was against NPS Property Corp., NPS Holiday Square LLC, Northwood Village, Inc., Brightwaters Gardens, Inc., Lakeside Garden Apartments LLC, and South Shore Gardens, LLC (collectively, “NPS”). The complaint alleged NPS told prospective African American tenants no upcoming units were available for rent, while informing prospective white tenants that there were multiple upcoming units available and separately, refused to accept applicants using housing vouchers, including SILO’s clients using vouchers designed for those with disabilities. The plaintiffs were represented by Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

In 2016, through systemic testing and investigations, LIHS discovered discrepancies in what NPS was allegedly telling prospective African American tenants and prospective white tenants about the availability of housing. This investigation also revealed that NPS was alleged to be discriminating against prospective tenants who use housing vouchers designed for those who have disabilities, NPS allegedly turned away SILO’s clients who sought units for rent.

“Long Island Housing Services has found that apartment complex owners, regardless of how large they are, need to have requirements for adopting fair housing policies and conducting fair housing training,” said Ian Wilder, Executive Director of Long Island Housing Services, Inc. “No matter how many complaints we bring, the market continues to fail to get property owners to do this on their own. Towns and Villages, as the only entities with regulatory power of property rental, must step up to require mandatory fair housing policies and fair housing training as part of the rental permit policy. It is way past time for municipalities to require landlords to professionalize their operations across the board. In fact, for municipalities that receive HUD funding they are required to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing which would include requiring every entity that they deal with take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that they obey fair housing laws. In addition, it would be in the interest of insurance companies to require residential property owners adopt fair housing policies and conduct annual fair housing training to reduce their likelihood of having to pay out for a violation of the law.”

The settlement was reached after a Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation finding that NPS had violated the Suffolk County fair housing laws by denying applicants because of their use of housing vouchers. NPS agreed to settle with LIHS for $105,000.00 in monetary damages, separate from attorneys’ fees and costs, and as part of the agreement, LIHS will monitor NPS Properties for three years at an additional cost of $25,000 per year. The settlement also stipulates NPS must adopt critical policy changes to safeguard against future discrimination, including adopting a minimum income requirement that for voucher holders considers only the portion of the rent for which the applicant is responsible, thus taking into account the structure and purpose for which vouchers exist. NPS will also implement a non-discriminatory fair housing policy, display an equal housing opportunity logo, and provide fair housing training to their employees and agents.

“The damage that housing discrimination can do to communities is not trivial – it is deep and lasting.” said Brian Corman, Partner at Cohen Milstein. “Today’s settlement creates meaningful safeguards to ensure the fair housing laws continue to protect people of color, those with disabilities, and those using housing vouchers from intentional discrimination and unlawful policies that reinforce segregation.”

“SILO’s intent is to ensure our society is totally accessible to people with disabilities. Total accessibility means people with disabilities must be afforded the same opportunities as everyone in our community. Disability or an individual’s source of income should not impede a disabled person in attaining a place to live. At SILO we are committed to preventing housing and source of income discrimination against individuals with disabilities,” said Joseph M. Delgado, Chief Executive Officer of Suffolk Independent Living Organization.

“Source of income discrimination disproportionately harms Black families and persons with disabilities, and landlords must not be allowed to skirt prohibitions on such discrimination through income policies that do not reflect the realities of rental assistance programs,” said Thomas Silverstein, Associate Director of the Fair Housing & Community Development Project at the Lawyers’ Committee. “Income policies like the one NPS is modifying as a result of this settlement also undermine the efficacy of our shared affordable housing investments and exacerbate segregation.”

As part of LIHS’ mission to end segregation, it monitors housing industry practices for race, disability, and source of income discrimination.  In this investigation, LIHS’ testers posed as ordinary home seekers to document the treatment they experienced for LIHS to determine compliance with fair housing laws.

Race Discrimination Investigation

In 2016, systemic testing and investigation by LIHS allegedly revealed that NPS was discriminating against African Americans.  Several of LIHS’ African American testers were allegedly informed by NPS that there were no available apartment units for rent.  However, LIHS’ White Testers allegedly were told that there were several upcoming available rental units. 

Disability and Source of Income Discrimination Investigation

Also in 2016, SILO reported allegations of disability and source of income discrimination to LIHS against NPS after they allegedly refused to accept SILO’s clients as tenants.  Additionally, two individual complainants reported allegations of disability and source of income discrimination against NPS, after being denied housing. Source of income discrimination occurs when a housing provider refuses to accept a lawful source of income, including, but not limited to, Supplemental Social Income (SSI), Social Security Disability (SSD), Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, Nursing Home Transition and Diversion (NHTD) Housing Subsidy, Olmstead Housing Subsidy (OHS), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) Medicaid Waiver program, or child support.

LIHS’ testing and investigation revealed evidence that testers posing as persons having a disability and Housing Voucher were allegedly told that they were not accepted because NPS had attained its quota of tenants with disabilities and Housing Vouchers.  Testers posing as individuals with Housing Vouchers for individuals with disabilities were not told about available apartments and were not able to view them.  Furthermore, a tester depicted as having a Department of Social Services One-Shot Deal was allegedly told that One-Shot Deal was not accepted. The One-Shot deal program provides financial assistance to low-income individuals in need of funds to cover the security deposit.   In comparison, the evidence demonstrated that testers without disabilities and an alternative source of income were allegedly told about available apartments and were invited to view the available apartments. A difference in treatment based on the protected class of disability and source of income is illegal housing discrimination protected under fair housing and human rights laws. 

NPS Property Corp. owns multiple apartment complexes in Suffolk County. Northwood Village, Inc., is the owner of Northwood Village, a residential rental building with 65 units located at 167 Weeks Road, North Babylon, New York. Brightwaters Gardens, Inc., is the owner of Brightwaters Gardens, a residential rental building with 24 units located at 9-15 Hiawatha Drive, Brightwaters, New York. NPS Holiday Square LLC owns a residential rental building with 144 units located at 10 Muncy Avenue, West Babylon, Suffolk County, New York Lakeside Garden Apartments LLC, is the owner of Lakeside Garden Apartments, a residential rental building with 55 units located at 25 Cedar Court, Copiague, New York. South Shore Gardens, LLC is the owner of South Shore Gardens, also known as South Shore Commons, a residential rental building located at 204 Farmingdale Road, West Babylon, Suffolk County, New York.

###

About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the causes of real people – workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers – working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good. For more information visit https://www.cohenmilstein.com

About Long Island Housing Services

Founded in 1969, Long Island Housing Services mission is the elimination of unlawful discrimination and promotion of decent and affordable housing through advocacy and education.  LIHS is a private, nonprofit HUD-qualified Fair Housing Enforcement Organization and a federally certified, approved Housing Counseling agency. (www.LIFairHousing.org)

About Suffolk Independent Living Organization

Suffolk Independent Living Organization (SILO) is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit, consumer-controlled, non-residential, civil rights, mentoring, and educational organization which has been providing programs and services to people with disabilities in Suffolk County since 1985.

About the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law

The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, formed in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy to mobilize the nation’s leading lawyers as agents for change in the Civil Rights Movement. Today, the Lawyers’ Committee uses legal advocacy to achieve racial justice, fighting inside and outside the courts to ensure that Black people and other people of color have the voice, opportunity, and power to make the promises of our democracy real. For more information, please visit https://lawyerscommittee.org.

Disclaimer

The work that provided the basis for this publication was supported by funding under a grant with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.  The substance and findings of the work are dedicated to the public. The author and publisher are solely responsible for the accuracy of the statements and interpretations contained in this publication.  Such interpretations do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal Government.

Press Contacts: Ian Wilder, Ian@LIFairHousing.org; Lacy Crawford, lcrawford@lawyerscommittee.org, press@lawyerscommittee.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Press contact: cohenmilstein@berlinrosen.com

COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL GROWS ITS WHISTLEBLOWER PRACTICE

Christina K. McGlosson, Former Acting Director, Whistleblower Office, Division of Enforcement, U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, joins the firm in its Washington, DC office

WASHINGTON, DC – Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, one of the leading plaintiffs’ law firms in the United States, announced today that Christina K. McGlosson has joined as Special Counsel: Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Practice in the firm’s Whistleblower practice. McGlosson most recently served as Acting Director of the Whistleblower Office, in the Division of Enforcement at the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Under her leadership, awards totaling $42 million were made to four deserving whistleblowers in September 2023 and October 2023.

“Joining Cohen Milstein offers me the ideal opportunity to use my experience and knowledge acquired over so many years in the public sector to represent brave whistleblowers who reveal fraud and misconduct,” said Christina McGlosson. “I am delighted to bring my Dodd-Frank expertise to the well-established and talented team at the firm.”

McGlosson brings more than two decades of experience both at the CFTC and, before that, at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). During her more than 18 years at the SEC, McGlosson served, among other prominent positions, as Senior Counsel to the Director of Enforcement, Senior Counsel to the Chief Economist, and helped create and structure the SEC’s Office of the Whistleblower. She regularly speaks as an expert in the federal securities laws, Commodity Exchange Act provisions, Dodd-Frank whistleblower provisions, government investigations, and legal and jurisdictional aspects of digital assets. She will represent clients in the presentation and prosecution of fraud claims before the SEC, CFTC, and IRS, as well as before other relevant government agencies. 

“Christina brings an impressive background to our seasoned whistleblower team,” said Benjamin D. Brown, managing partner at Cohen Milstein. “I am certain she will help expand our ability to represent whistleblowers who expose major incidences of corporate fraud that serve to undermine the integrity of financial markets.”

###

About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the causes of real people—workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers—working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good. For more information visit https://www.cohenmilstein.com/

Consumer class action addresses Meta Platforms fraudulently misleading advertisers with inflated metrics about “potential reach.”

WASHINGTON, DC– The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s 2022 order certifying a class of advertisers who paid Meta Platforms, Inc. (Meta) to place advertisements on its social media platforms (the damages class).

Advertisers alleged that Meta fraudulently misrepresented the “potential reach” of advertisements on its platforms, such as Facebook and Instagram, by stating that potential reach was an estimate of people, although it was actually an estimate of user accounts.

“We are very happy with today’s Ninth Circuit ruling. We now look forward to showing the evidence at trial that Meta knew about this inflated reach issue for years and yet continued to take advantage of advertising customers,” said Geoffrey Graber, partner at Cohen Milstein and Lead Counsel representing the plaintiffs in this class action.

Plaintiffs further allege that because Facebook inflated its “potential reach,” plaintiffs purchased more advertisements from Facebook and paid a higher price for advertisements than they otherwise would have.

Documents produced by Facebook confirm that senior executives at the company knew for years that its “potential reach” metric was inflated – yet they failed to do anything, and even took steps to cover up the problem. In fact, in late 2017 and throughout 2018, Facebook executives repeatedly acknowledged “potential reach” was inflated and misleading due to, among other reasons, the fact that “potential reach” includes duplicate and fake accounts.

The case, DZ Reserve et al. v. Meta Platforms, Case No. 3:18-cv-04978 (N.D. Cal.), is the second false advertising and unfair business practices class action, specifically addressing Meta Platforms’ inflated advertising metrics, that Cohen Milstein has led. In June 2020, the court granted final approval of a $40 million settlement against Facebook in LLE One, LLC v. Facebook (Meta Platforms, Inc.), No.: 4:16-cv-06232-JSW (N.D. Cal.). This case, which addressed inflated advertising performance metrics related to video advertisements, was also led by Geoffrey Graber.

The Cohen Milstein team representing the plaintiff class in DZ Reserve v. Meta Platforms, Inc. is Geoffrey Graber, Eric Kafka, Karina Puttieva, and Madelyn Petersen. The plaintiff class is also represented by Charles Reichmann of the Law Offices of Charles Reichmann.

Press Contact: cohenmilstein@berlinrosen.com

###

About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the causes of real people – workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers – working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good.