This recall involves Giantex and Costway branded portable steam saunas. The saunas were sold as part of a set that includes a folding chair, foot roller, felt mat and remote control. The portable saunas have a steam unit that connects to an enclosure via tubing. The enclosure has an opening for the user's head to remain outside the enclosure. The enclosures were sold in black, copper, beige, blue, green and pink. The name "Giantex" or "Costway" is imprinted on the front of the enclosure. The model numbers and/or SKU are printed on the item packaging. The model numbers and SKUs are: Model Number SKU BA7635US-BK GT7635US-BABK BA7635US-CF GT7635US-BACF BA7635US-GR GT7635US-GR-BA BA7635US-NY GT7635US-BANY BA7733US-BK GT7733US-BK-AB BA7733US-CF GT7733US-CF-AB BA7733US-GR GT7733US-GR-AB BA7733US-PI GT7733US-PI-AB BA7579US-BK GT7579US-BK-BA BA7579US-CF GT7579US-CF-BA BA7579US-GR GT7579US-GR-BA — Products: Giantex and Costway 2-liter and 3-liter Portable Steam Saunas · Remedy: Refund · Recalle
Pay it forward
The average person is owed $300+they don't know about. Sharing takes 10 seconds and could put real money in a friend's pocket.
Mizuno agreed to a class action settlement to resolve claims that a 2024 data breach compromised consumer information. Claim up to $5,475.... Read More The post Mizuno data breach class action settlement appeared first on Top Class Actions.
$1,000
estimated
May 27, 2026 Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov Settlement reached ahead of scheduled trial OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today secured a settlement holding Florida-based MV Realty, its Chief Executive Officer (CEO), and its Chief Operating Officer (COO) accountable for operating a predatory scheme that provided immediate cash payments to financially vulnerable homeowners in exchange for the exclusive right to be their listing agent if they ever sold their homes in the next 40 years. The company misled consumers about the terms of these homeowner agreements and deceptively recorded liens on their homes, which prevented homeowners and their successors from transferring their home unless they paid MV Realty tens of thousands of dollars in so-called “early termination fees.” The liens could also impede homeowners from refinancing their homes or getting home equity loans. The settlement requires MV Realty to individually terminate all its liens, pay back homeowners who paid early termination fees, and void its homeowner agreements. It also imposes significant financial penalties and restrictions on its future business activities in California. “We will not tolerate predatory conduct that targets vulnerable Californians and puts their homes at risk,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “This settlement delivers the relief we sought in our lawsuit, including full restitution for consumers and the complete undoing of the unlawful practices at issue. At a time when Californians are facing an affordability crisis, exploitation like this only adds pressure on households struggling to make ends meet — and it is unacceptable.” MV Realty began actively operating in California in early 2022. Today’s settlement resolves the lawsuit filed against MV Realty by Attorney General Bonta and the Santa Barbara County and Napa County District Attorneys’ Offices in December 2023. In September 2024, they secured a preliminary injunction against MV Realty, which was upheld on appeal in December 2025, requiring the company to terminate its liens. Trial was scheduled to begin on June 10, 2026 in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. “MV Realty placed profits ahead of people by taking advantage of struggling homeowners and locking them into decades-long agreements by employing deceptive and unlawful business practices,” said Napa County District Attorney Allison Haley. “It was a privilege to work with our colleagues at the Attorney General’s Office and the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s Office in obtaining a settlement that holds MV Realty accountable, provides meaningful relief to impacted homeowners, and reinforces that California will take action against predatory practices that exploit the financially vulnerable.” “The Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office was proud to team with the Attorney General’s Office and the Napa County DA’s Office in getting relief for Californians who were victimized by a predatory scheme that took advantage of people who were already struggling financially,” said Santa Barbara County District Attorney John T. Savrnoch. “Californians have a right to expect that when they contract with a real estate company that the company will act in their best interests. This settlement provides an example of how California authorities will respond when a company fails in its duties to its customers by trying to take advantage of them through a predatory and unfair scheme.” As a result of the settlement: All homeowner contracts are void. MV Realty must individually terminate all liens. MV Realty, its CEO, and its COO are prohibited from engaging in any business in California that requires a real estate license for 5 years. MV Realty must pay full restitution to consumers, totaling over $1.3 million as well as nearly $1.2 million in civil penalties, for a total monetary judgment of $2.5 million. A number of states, including California, have passed legislation prohibiting fraudulent schemes like the one MV Realty engaged in. In October 2023, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law AB 1345, which went into effect on January 1, 2024. Sponsored by Attorney General Bonta, AB 1345 imposes a two-year limit on residential exclusive listing agreements and clarifies that these agreements cannot be filed with a county recorder. In September 2023, MV Realty filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida. The court dismissed the bankruptcy in May 2024. Tags: Consumer Protection Housing
$1,000
estimated
May 7, 2026 Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov Settlement includes first-in-state injunctive terms, $2 million in penalties, and $300,000 in restitution OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced reaching a settlement with Aspen Dental Management, Inc. (Aspen Dental) for allegedly violating California’s ban on the corporate practice of dentistry and engaging in false and misleading advertising. Owned by private equity firms, Aspen Dental describes itself as a dental support organization that provides business management and administrative services to dental offices, each of which operates under the “Aspen Dental” name and branding. However, the company is alleged to have exceeded that role by, among other things, interfering with and unlawfully directing the practice, ownership, and management of dentistry in California. The settlement, which remains subject to court approval, includes unprecedented injunctive terms to protect California consumers and clinical staff, $2 million in penalties, and $300,000 in restitution funds for certain patients. “As Americans face an affordability crisis, there is no room for unlawful business practices that can increase healthcare costs or harm consumers. We allege that Aspen Dental went beyond providing business support services and became involved in managing dental operations, while also using advertising that misrepresented services to consumers,” said Attorney General Bonta. “With this settlement, my office is making clear that patient care must remain in the hands of licensed professionals. If you believe you are a victim of false or misleading advertising, please report it to oag.ca.gov/report.” Since its founding in 1998, Aspen Dental has expanded to more than a thousand offices nationwide. It entered California in 2019 and has since opened 19 offices and served tens of thousands of patients. As part of this expansion, it is alleged that Aspen Dental did not contract with existing dental offices, but rather selected, purchased, staffed, and advertised its offices without clearly identifying an independent dentist-owner. For example, Aspen Dental designed, built out, and furnished all of its offices and made detailed decisions about each location, down to the artwork in bathrooms. It also selected, purchased, and installed all dental equipment across offices. Aspen Dental also encouraged the sale of particular products and services through direct incentives to practices’ clinical employees. For example, Aspen Dental developed and implemented an incentive program for hygienists to encourage the sale of clear aligners. The program offered hygienists $50 per sale to new patients or $100 per sale to existing patients. Business practices of this kind limited dentist-owners, restricted staff, misguided patients, and purportedly violated California’s ban on the corporate practice of dentistry and California’s Unfair Competition Law. Further, many advertisements that Aspen Dental created contained misleading and/or false representations, including misleading testimonials, ambiguity, misleading cost claims, and inexact pricing language. Some Aspen Dental advertisements represented that its offices worked with all insurance or no insurance. However, Aspen Dental offices did not accept state or federally funded insurance programs. Other advertisements described low prices for certain products or procedures without clearly disclosing the factors that affect the price or what’s provided. As a part of the settlement, Aspen Dental has agreed to $2 million in penalties, $300,000 in restitution funds, and injunctive terms, including: Not replacing any practice owner with another dentist of its choosing. Not requiring practice owners to effectively give up ownership of any dental practices if they decide to terminate their contractual relationship with Aspen Dental. Not owning the property for any practice. Not practicing dentistry, including but not limited to owning or managing any dental office. Not basing service fees on revenue, sales, or profits. Not suggesting, directing, or encouraging any licensed clinician, other than a practice owner, to sell or increase revenue for any service or product. Not compensating any of its employees based on the sales or revenue of practices. Not paying any practice employees incentives based on practice sales, revenue, or profit, including the sale of a particular service or product. Discontinuing the use of and not enforcing any existing contractual provision that restricts where any licensed clinician may practice or be employed. Providing a written fee schedule for products and laboratory services. Registering with the Dental Board of California as a Dental Group Advertising and Referral Service. Clearly and conspicuously identifying the practice owners name when creating, publishing, or disseminating advertisements. Tags: Consumer Protection Health Care & Reproductive Rights
$1,000
estimated
$15.26M Contaminated Blood Pressure Drug Settlement: Claim Deadline Hits June 2
$1,000
estimated