 |
|
|
|||||
More than 444,000 people who rented homes with Invitation Homes will soon receive checks as part of a $47.2 million settlement stemming from a 2024 lawsuit filed by the Federal Trade Commission. The Dallas-based company, which owns and/or manages more than 110,000 single-family homes in the U.S., is accused of deceiving 441,131 consumers with undisclosed fees and charges totaling $45 or more. People who paid for certain fees and charges between January 2021 and September 2024 will be eligible for checks that will be sent by the FTC. One of the largest single-family home landlords in the country, Invitation Homes is currently advertising thousands of available rentals in 13 different states, heavily concentrated in core markets like Atlanta, Tampa, Phoenix, Charlotte, Orlando, Miami, Jacksonville, Denver, and Las Vegas. As part of the FTC settlement, the corporate landlord will be required to clearly disclose its leasing prices, establish policies and procedures to handle security deposit refunds fairly, and stop other unlawful behavior. Its rental listings currently include a breakdown of the various fees included in the all-in-rent fee. Renters who paid Invitation Homes $45 or more for covered fees or charges between January 2021 and September 2024and who have not already received a credit or refund from the companywill be eligible for payment. The FTC will be sending out the checks, which must be cashed within 90 days. Though the company agreed to pay more than $48 million to compensate consumers, that amount is slightly more than the amount the FTC will send outtotaling about $106, on average, for each affected renter. INVITATION HOMES INVITES SCRUTINY The settlement comes about 18 months after the FTC sued Invitation Homes in September 2024 alleging various unlawful actions, according to the settlement details. Such actions included deceiving applicants about lease costs, charging renters undisclosed fees, failing to inspect homes before residents moved in, unfairly withholding tenants security deposits or imposing deceptive and unfair charges when renters moved out, and not permitting renters to opt out of certain services, like smart home technology. The company didnt immediately respond to a request for comment from Fast Company. Dallas Tanner, CEO of Invitation Homes, was asked about the companys legal issues with the FTC during a February meeting to discuss another company he leads, MIXT Industries, leasing a golf course in Polson, Montana. Though Tanner said he cant speak publicly about things like that, he did tell the public meeting that it became very popular during President Joe Bidens administration to sort-of pick on housing groups, according to reporting by the Lake County Leader. But Invitation Homes has been under fire on multiple fronts recentlyand from both sides of the political aisle. Its among a number of large corporate buyers of single-family homes thats drawn the ire of President Donald Trump and other lawmakers in Washington, D.C. and beyond. This January, Trump signed an executive order, Stopping Wall Street from Competing with Main Street Homebuyers to crackdown on large, institutional investors purchasing single-family homes. In 2024, the company agreed to a $19.9 million settlement to resolve claims that alleged Invitation Homes had failed to obtain the necessary permits to avoid permit fees and property tax increases in 35 California cities. Shares of Invitation Homes (NYSE:INVH) rose nearly 0.4% on Friday, though the stock has tumbled more than 23% in the past year.
Category:
E-Commerce
A recent class-action lawsuit against David Protein, filed in January, alleges the company misrepresented the amount of calories and fat in its popular, healthy-branded bar, claiming that it had “way more” of both than customers were led to believe. Now, in response to the lawsuit, social media is having a field day with comparisons to the 2004 movie Mean Girls, with one TikTok user and apparent David Protein customer posting, “I have been Regina Georged.” Here’s a quick brief on what’s happening. Wait, remind me, what’s the ‘Mean Girls’ plot again? If you’re like me, you’ve seen Mean Girls a dozen times. The plot is a hilarious and biting commentary on the social pressure on American teenage girls today. One major through-line in the high school teen girl drama is when protagonist and outcast Cady Heron (played by Lindsay Lohan) decides to fight back against popular Queen Bee Regina George (played by Rachel McAdams), and dupes her into eating fattening Kälteen Bars protein bars, pretending they are for weight loss: So how is this like the David protein bar lawsuit? David Protein says its bars have 150 calories, 28 grams of protein, two grams of fat, and zero grams of sugar. However, the lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York last month alleges the bars actually have 83% more calories and 400% more fat, according to third-party testing. Linus Technologies, the main defendant in the class-action lawsuit, operates under brand name David Protein. Fast Company has reached out to David Protein for comment. The lawsuit claims customers unwittingly bought the product without knowing its actual nutritional content, and requests payment for their damages or $50, whichever is more. David Protein, for its part, did acknowledge the social media references to Mean Girls. “No one is getting Regina Georged” David Protein posted on Instagram on Wednesday. “And the David bar still has 150 calories.”
Category:
E-Commerce
Its possible that the IRS may owe you some money from the COVID era. Last month, a U.S. Court of Federal Claims decision broadened the interpretation of a particular part of the tax code, IRC Section 7508A, which concerned the postponement of tax deadlines during disasters, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, a February ruling in Kwong v. United States (2025)a lawsuit concerning a plaintiffs attempt to get a refund for tax penaltiesdecided that deadlines for filing tax returns, paying taxes, or filing for refunds needed to be completed by July 11, 2023. So, if a taxpayer was supposed to file their 2020 tax return by April 15, 2021, the date was shifted to July 11, 2023. Accordingly, this could have caused incorrect calculations by the IRS in terms of penalties, refunds, or claims of interest due on refunds. In effect, the courts are saying that the IRS didnt have standing to charge penalties or interest while the emergency postponement was in effect, plus 60 days. The public health emergency caused by the pandemic lasted between January 20, 2020, and May 11, 2023. Sixty days after that: July 11, 2023. In short: Its possible that taxpayers could be due for a refund, or to have penalties or interest levied against them for unpaid taxes relieved. Its possible, though, that the IRS and federal government can appeal the ruling, so nothing is set in stone. How to find out if you may be owed money, and what to do next For taxpayers who feel like they may be owed some additional reliefthat is, they think they were unfairly charged penalties or interest during the period between January 20, 2020, and July 10, 2023its possible to request a refund. One company, Western Digital, took action last month, suing the IRS for $21 million, claiming that it was unfairly charged interest during the disaster period. As for individual taxpayers, youll want to check your tax records to see if you were actually hit with any penalties or interest during the disaster period, in order to ensure you have standing. That can be done by looking at your tax account transcript, available from the IRS. Further, you or a tax professional can file Form 843 with the IRS to request a refund using the information on the transcript.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||