The Tab

J.B. Hunt to Pay $5 Million in FCRA Settlement

What Job Applicants and Employees Should Know

08/07/25 - J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc. has agreed to pay $5 million to resolve a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The crux of the claim is that the company took adverse actions—such as denying employment—based on background reports without providing applicants or employees a copy of the report or informing them of their FCRA rights beforehand.

Who Qualifies?

What You could Get, dates & next steps

To be part of the settlement, individuals must:

Have applied for or worked at J.B. Hunt (or its subsidiaries) in the U.S., including territories.
Be the subject of an adverse employment action based on a background check.
Not have received a copy of the consumer report or the FCRA rights summary at least five business days before the adverse action.

What You could Get, dates & next steps

Eligible class members may receive approximately $100 to $400 each, depending on the number of claims filed and the final administrative calculations.

Important Dates & Next Steps

Period covered by the settlement: Between June 22, 2020, and September 11, 2024.
If you believe you're a class member, watch your mailbox or email for official notices from the claim administrator.
Those who meet the criteria will be notified about how to file a claim, opt out, or object to the settlement.

Why It Matters

What You could Get, dates & next steps

Why It Matters

The FCRA is designed to protect individuals' rights when background checks are used in employment decisions. Employers must:

Provide a standalone disclosure before obtaining a background check.
If adverse action is taken (like not hiring or firing), the employer must first give a copy of the report and a summary of FCRA rights, then wait at least five business days.

This settlement underscores the importance of those protections—and reminds employers of the serious legal and financial consequences that come with non‑compliance.

broader issues from j.b. hunt case

The underlying case against J.B. Hunt raises broader legal, ethical, and systemic concerns surrounding the use of background checks in employment. At its core, the case is about more than one company’s misstep—it highlights persistent tensions between privacy rights, fairness in hiring, and employer risk management.

🔍 1. Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) Compliance Gaps Are Widespread

What the J.B. Hunt Case Shows:

The company allegedly took adverse action (e.g., denying employment) before providing applicants a copy of their background report and a summary of their rights, which is a direct violation of the FCRA
This step is crucial: it allows applicants to dispute incorrect information before decisions are made.

Broader Issues:

Many employers (especially large ones using automated or third-party screening systems) fail to follow FCRA-required procedures, either through ignorance or lack of oversight.
This leads to systemic harm where applicants are excluded from employment based on potentially inaccurate or misleading data.

⚖️ 2. Due Process in the Hiring Process

What the Case Shows:

J.B. Hunt was accused of denying applicants the opportunity to challenge negative information before being rejected or terminated.

Broader Issues:

Job applicants have few protections in practice if decisions are made hastily and opaquely.
Without due process, people—especially those with common-name errors, sealed records, or outdated infractions—may be unfairly blacklisted.

📉 3. Disproportionate Impact on Marginalized Communities

Context:

Background checks disproportionately affect:
- Communities of color, who are over represented in the criminal justice system.
- Low-income individuals, who may not have resources to dispute errors.

Broader Issue:

Automated, rigid hiring policies based on background checks entrench socioeconomic inequalities and undermine second chances for individuals trying to rebuild their lives.

🧾 4. Overreliance on Third-Party Background Screening Companies

What the Case Shows:

Many large employers outsource background checks but still retain legal responsibility under the FCRA.

Broader Issue:

Companies often treat vendors as independent when the law sees them as agents.
There’s a lack of oversight of how these third parties collect, verify, and present data—leading to errors, outdated records, or misattributions.

🔄 5. Automated Decision-Making and Lack of Human Review

What May Be at Play:

It’s unclear whether J.B. Hunt used algorithmic decision systems, but the fast pace of rejection suggests minimal human review.

Broader Issue:

There’s a growing trend of automated hiring decisions that remove humans from critical fairness checks.
When combined with background checks, these systems can quickly lead to invisible discrimination and no appeal process.

🔐 6. Transparency and Trust in Employer Practices

Key Insight:

Many applicants never know why they were rejected—and never get to see what’s in their report.

Broader Issue:

This lack of transparency contributes to mistrust in hiring systems and may violate basic fairness principles.
It also discourages applicants from applying at all if they’ve had any prior legal entanglement, regardless of relevance or time passed.

📢 Conclusion: Why This Case Matters

The J.B. Hunt settlement isn’t just a corporate misstep—it is a flashpoint in the ongoing debate about fairness, privacy, and equity in hiring. It brings attention to how hiring practices—especially those involving criminal and credit background checks—can reinforce systemic biases unless carefully regulated and transparently administered.

Victory for Consumers: Cash App to Pay $12.5M for spam texts

08/05/25 - In a major win for everyday consumers, a Washington federal judge has given the green light to a $12.5 million settlement that will put money directly back into the hands of people targeted with unwanted text messages from Cash App’s parent company, Block Inc.

The preliminary approval is the first step toward compensating potentially millions of Washington residents who say they were bombarded with “annoying and harassing” marketing messages they never agreed to receive.

📲 The Backstory: Standing Up to Spam

The lawsuit began when Kimberly Bottoms, a Washington resident, stepped forward to challenge Cash App’s “Invite Friends” referral feature, which sent texts encouraging people to sign up for the service.

Bottoms alleged these texts were sent without the recipients’ permission, violating WA’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA) and Consumer Protection Act (CPA)—two of the strongest consumer‑protection laws in the country.

Rather than risk a trial, Block Inc. agreed to settle the case for $12.5 million—without admitting wrongdoing—marking one of the largest state‑level anti‑spam settlements in recent memory.

💰 What Consumers Stand to Gain

This settlement could mean real cash in your pocket if you qualify:

Payouts estimated between $88 and $147 per person—depending on the number of claims submitted.
No proof of purchase needed—if your phone number appears in Cash App’s records and meets the criteria, you’re in.
Millions of Washington residents are potentially eligible.

That’s money for your time, your phone’s storage, and your peace of mind—compensating you for the irritation and intrusion of unwanted texts.

🏆 Why This Matters

Sets a precedent: The case shows that even big‑name tech and finance companies must follow strict consumer consent laws.
Empowers consumers: Washington’s strong anti‑spam laws give residents more power to fight back than federal rules alone.
Deters future spam: Companies will think twice before pushing out mass text campaigns without clear permission.

📋 Who’s Eligible?

You may be part of the settlement if:

You lived in Washington between November 14, 2019, and a yet‑to‑be‑determined date in 2025.
You received a Cash App referral/invite text during that time.
You did not consent to receiving marketing messages from Cash App.

🗓 What Happens Next

Official notices will go out soon via mail and email.
Claim forms will be made available on the settlement website—expected to go live shortly after final court approval.
Class members will have about 90 days from the notice date to file claims.

✅ Take Action

Watch your mail and email for settlement notices.
File your claim as soon as the form is available.
Choose your preferred payment method—check, PayPal, Venmo, etc.—to receive your share.

📌 Quick Facts

Total Settlement - $12.5 million
Estimated Payout - $88–$147 per claimant
Class Size - Approx. 2 million phone numbers in Washington
Laws Invoked - Washington CEMA & Consumer Protection Act
Status - Preliminary approval granted; final approval pending

Bottom Line

Bottom line: This settlement is more than just a payout—it’s a clear message that consumer rights matter. If you’ve been spammed without your consent, you’re not powerless. And in Washington, the law is firmly on your side.

Credit One’s $14M Wake-Up Call

📞 Background: The TCPA Violation

Date: July 16, 2025

Between 2014 and 2019, Credit One Bank (and related affiliates) allegedly used automated dialing systems and prerecorded messages to call individuals without prior express consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)—a federal law that prohibits unsolicited marketing or debt-collection calls made via robocall technology.

These calls reportedly targeted both existing customers and non-customers whose phone numbers were mistakenly or erroneously contacted. Some recipients even reported that the calls continued after they asked to stop.

💵 Settlement Overview

Total fund: $14 million, established to resolve TCPA-related claims The Enterprise World+12Licking News+12Inclusiveapprenticeship.org+12
Net amount for claimants: After attorneys’ fees and administrative costs, about $8–9 million remains FXStreet+5govtschemes.co+5TCFFCA Magazine+5
Individual payouts: Typically between $100 and $1,000, with some variability based on evidence and number of calls

Credit One does not admit liability, but opted for the settlement to avoid protracted litigation

📝 Claim Process & Timeline

Court approval pending, followed by a live claims website
Claims likely to open 30–45 days after approval, remain open 60–90 days
Claims reviewed over 3–5 months
Payments begin 6–9 months post-approval, potentially in late 2025 or early 2026

Claimants will receive notices via mail or email, often including a Claim ID, and can choose payment via direct deposit, check, PayPal, etc.

📌 Why It Matters

📝 Claim Process & Timeline

Upholding TCPA rights: Reinforces legal protections designed to shield consumers from intrusive and unwelcome automated calls.
Crossing customers and non-customers: Highlights that misuse of robocall systems harms many—even people who never interacted with the institution.
Corporate compliance warning: Sends a signal that banks must obtain clear consent before initiating robocalls.

A similar case against Citibank also revolved around TCPA violations and resulted in payouts up to $850, demonstrating the law’s powerful reach

✅ Eligibility Criteria

📝 Claim Process & Timeline

✅ Eligibility Criteria

You're likely eligible if:

You received at least one robocall from Credit One Bank or its affiliates between 2014–2019.
You did not provide prior express consent to receive such calls.
You owned the phone number that was called at the time.

No Credit One account is required—many notifications went to You're likely eligible if:

You received at least one robocall from Credit One Bank or its affiliates between 2014–2019.
You did not provide prior express consent to receive such calls.
You owned the phone number that was called at the time.

💡 What You Should Do

✅ Eligibility Criteria

Look for mailed or emailed claim notices (with Claim IDs)
Collect evidence (calls logs, voicemails, screenshots) if available
Submit your claim once the portal launches—don’t delay; missed deadlines mean forfeiture
Monitor progress via the official settlement website—beware of scams requesting payment or personal data

🕵️ Bottom Line

💡 What You Should Do

🕵️ Bottom Line

If you received unauthorized robocalls from Credit One Bank between 2014–2019, you may qualify for a TCPA settlement payout—typically $100–$1,000. With a $14 million fund, this settlement emphasizes your legal rights and reflects growing enforcement of consumer privacy protections.

Stay alert and prepared—your claim could help hold big financial institutions accountable.

📲 Cash App’s “Final Notification” Texts Just Got Expensive

💰 $12.5 Million Settlement Over Spam Messages Shakes Things Up

Date: July 15, 2025

Looks like Cash App just got a taste of its own surcharge./

The popular mobile payment service has agreed to a $12.5 million class action settlement over allegations it sent unsolicited marketing texts to consumers—without consent. Yep, those “security alerts,” “money requests,” and “You’ve got Cash!” pings may have cost them a lot more than a standard data plan.

Under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), that kind of behavior isn’t just annoying—it’s potentially illegal.

Let’s break it down—Straight Up style.

⚖️ What Happened?

Cash App was accused of:

Sending automated promotional texts
To people who never signed up
Including some who replied STOP and still kept getting messages

That’s a classic TCPA no-no. The TCPA requires express written consent for marketing texts, and consumers have the right to opt out at any time.

📬 The Lawsuit

The class action lawsuit, filed in federal court, alleged that Cash App's texting habits:

Violated the TCPA
Ignored opt-out requests
Targeted consumers who were on the National Do Not Call Registry

Rather than duke it out in court, Cash App agreed to a $12.5 million settlement fund—not an admission of wrongdoing, but a clear sign they were ready to pour a lid on this mess.

💸 What It Means for Consumers

If you received one of these texts, you may be entitled to a payout—without lifting more than a thumb.

Consumers who:

Received Cash App texts between specific dates (details to come in the official notice)
Didn’t consent to receive them
Or opted out but kept getting messages

…could qualify for a share of the settlement once claims open.

📝 Pro tip: Save those texts, timestamps, and opt-out screenshots. Even a single unwanted message could be worth $500–$1,500 under TCPA standards.

📵 The Bigger Issue: Texts You Didn’t Ask For

This case is part of a much bigger trend: companies abusing text marketing and brushing off consent like it’s optional.

Newsflash: It’s not. Text spam is one of the most common TCPA violations, and more consumers are fighting back—with class actions like this leading the charge.

🥃 Final Sip

Cash App may have thought they were being helpful. But when “helpful” comes in the form of unsolicited, automated texts, consumers don’t get convenience—they get violated rights and vibrating phones at midnight.

This $12.5 million settlement is a reminder to big brands:
If you text consumers without permission, it’s not marketing—it’s a mess.

💬 Think you’ve been spammed by a brand without consent? Slide into Ask the Bartender. We’ve got TCPA knowledge and a twist of sass—ready to serve.

Because at The Consumer Bar, we believe justice should always be opt-in only.

💰 Let’s talk damages, settlements, and receipts.

J.B. Hunt to Pay $5 Million in FCRA Settlement

What Job Applicants and Employees Should Know

Who Qualifies?

What You could Get, dates & next steps

What You could Get, dates & next steps

What You could Get, dates & next steps

What You could Get, dates & next steps

What You could Get, dates & next steps

Why It Matters

What You could Get, dates & next steps

Why It Matters

broader issues from j.b. hunt case

🔍 1. Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) Compliance Gaps Are Widespread

⚖️ 2. Due Process in the Hiring Process

📉 3. Disproportionate Impact on Marginalized Communities

🧾 4. Overreliance on Third-Party Background Screening Companies

🔄 5. Automated Decision-Making and Lack of Human Review

🔐 6. Transparency and Trust in Employer Practices

📢 Conclusion: Why This Case Matters

Victory for Consumers: Cash App to Pay $12.5M for spam texts

📲 The Backstory: Standing Up to Spam

💰 What Consumers Stand to Gain

🏆 Why This Matters

📋 Who’s Eligible?

🗓 What Happens Next

✅ Take Action

📌 Quick Facts

Bottom Line

Credit One’s $14M Wake-Up Call

📞 Background: The TCPA Violation

💵 Settlement Overview

📝 Claim Process & Timeline

📝 Claim Process & Timeline

📝 Claim Process & Timeline

📌 Why It Matters

📝 Claim Process & Timeline

📝 Claim Process & Timeline

✅ Eligibility Criteria

📝 Claim Process & Timeline

✅ Eligibility Criteria

💡 What You Should Do

💡 What You Should Do

✅ Eligibility Criteria

🕵️ Bottom Line

💡 What You Should Do

🕵️ Bottom Line

📲 Cash App’s “Final Notification” Texts Just Got Expensive

💰 $12.5 Million Settlement Over Spam Messages Shakes Things Up

⚖️ What Happened?

📬 The Lawsuit

💸 What It Means for Consumers

📵 The Bigger Issue: Texts You Didn’t Ask For

🥃 Final Sip

This website uses cookies.

J.B. Hunt to Pay $5 Million in FCRA Settlement