{"proposedActions":[{"id":"mann-campbell-v-juul-labs-canada-ltd-2026-bcsc-1288","slug":"mann-campbell-v-juul-labs-canada-ltd-2026-bcsc-1288","title":"JUUL Vaping Class Action","category":"Product Liability and Defects","stage":"certified","tags":{"industry":["Consumer goods"],"geographic":["Canada-wide"],"eligibilityTrigger":["Purchased a product"]},"allegationsSummary":"The lawsuit alleges that people suffered personal injuries from using JUUL branded e-cigarette devices and pods, and it is brought against JUUL Labs Canada, Ltd., JUUL Labs, Inc. and Altria Group, Inc. The claim says the defendants were negligent and failed to warn users, broke provincial consumer protection laws through unfair or deceptive practices, were unjustly enriched, and took part in a conspiracy, and it also claims breach of contract against JUUL Labs Canada, Ltd. as the seller. The plaintiffs seek damages for personal injuries, refunds or restitution, and nominal damages. None of these allegations has been proved in court.","proposedClassDefinition":"The class certified by the court includes people living in Canada who used and directly or indirectly bought JUUL Devices or JUUL Pods in Canada, mainly for personal use, between August 1, 2018 and July 15, 2026. The defendants, their officers and directors, and those people's heirs, successors and assigns are excluded.","whatHappensNext":"The Supreme Court of British Columbia certified the action as a class proceeding on July 15, 2026, which means only that the case may go forward as a class action, not that the allegations are true. The court also approved a plan for notifying class members, so a notice explaining their options may be published. The defendants may try to appeal. The case may then move toward a trial of the shared issues or a possible settlement. These steps often take years and the timeline is uncertain. No settlement has been reported and no claims process exists.","caseBackground":"This case is about JUUL branded e-cigarettes, including JUUL Devices and JUUL Pods. The lawsuit alleges that people who used these products suffered personal injuries, and that the companies behind them did not properly warn users and engaged in unfair or deceptive practices under provincial consumer protection laws.\n\nThe case was started in British Columbia on September 30, 2019 against JUUL Labs Canada, Ltd. and JUUL Labs, Inc. Altria Group, Inc. was added as a defendant on September 18, 2020. In a 2022 ruling on whether the BC court could hear the claim against Altria, the judge found the evidence did not rule out Altria having some direct or indirect involvement in selling or marketing JUUL products in Canada. Altria says it was only an indirect investor in JUUL Labs, Inc.\n\nThe court certified the case as a class action on July 15, 2026, but none of the claims has been proved.","faqs":[{"answer":"No. If you fit the class definition, you are already included and there is nothing to file or sign right now. The court has approved a plan for notifying class members. When that notice is published, it will explain any choices or deadlines that apply, such as how to opt out of the class.","question":"Do I need to do anything right now?"},{"answer":"No. No settlement or court award has been reported, and there is nothing to claim at this time.","question":"Is there any money available now?"},{"answer":"This record covers one proceeding, in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Its class includes people living anywhere in Canada who used and directly or indirectly bought JUUL Devices or JUUL Pods in Canada, mainly for personal use, between August 1, 2018 and July 15, 2026.","question":"Which proceeding covers me?"},{"answer":"The case would have to be resolved in the class's favour, either by a court judgment after a trial or by a settlement that the court approves. Neither has happened, and either may never happen.","question":"What has to happen before a claims process could open?"},{"answer":"Siskinds LLP and Rice Harbut Elliott LLP, the law firms representing the class, may post updates on their websites. Watchlist updates on Claim.ca also report major developments, such as a settlement or a notice to class members.","question":"How can I stay informed?"}],"proceedings":{"body":"The court filing behind this class action.","items":[{"id":"7147f992f4e94df7","url":"https://www.siskinds.com/class-action/juul-e-cigarettes/","court":"Supreme Court of British Columbia","firms":[{"name":"Siskinds LLP","region":"All provinces and territories across Canada","website":"https://www.siskinds.com/class-action/juul-e-cigarettes/"},{"name":"Rice Harbut Elliott LLP","region":"All provinces and territories across Canada","website":"https://rplelaw.com/class-action/juul-e-cigarettes/"}],"stage":"certified","caseName":"Mann-Campbell v. JUUL Labs Canada, Ltd.","dateFiled":"2019-09-30","fileNumber":"S1910927","jurisdiction":"British Columbia","dateCertified":"2026-07-15"}],"heading":"The proceeding"},"plaintiffFirms":[{"name":"Siskinds LLP","contacts":[{"type":"online","label":"Website","value":"https://www.siskinds.com/class-action/juul-e-cigarettes/"}],"region":"All provinces and territories across Canada"},{"name":"Rice Harbut Elliott LLP","contacts":[{"type":"online","label":"Website","value":"https://rplelaw.com/class-action/juul-e-cigarettes/"}],"region":"All provinces and territories across Canada"}],"sourceDocuments":[{"url":"/uploads/d4c58ba929e8bb9c84e3bc3f-Juul-2026bcsc1288-certification-decision.pdf","title":"Juul 2026bcsc1288-certification decision.pdf"}],"filedDate":"2019-09-30","certificationHearingDate":"","optOutDeadline":null,"seriousHarmEnabled":false,"quietPresentation":false,"stageChangedAt":"2026-09-30 01:49:50","lastReviewed":"2026-09-29","outcomeSummary":"","promotedSettlementSlug":"","relatedSlugs":[],"dateAdded":"2026-09-26","lastUpdated":"2026-09-29","languages":["en","fr"]},{"id":"roundup-glyphosate-non-hodgkin-s-lymphoma-class-action","slug":"roundup-glyphosate-non-hodgkin-s-lymphoma-class-action","title":"Roundup (Glyphosate) Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma Class Action","category":"Product Liability and Defects","stage":"certified","tags":{"industry":["Consumer goods"],"geographic":["Canada-wide"],"eligibilityTrigger":["Purchased a product","Was exposed to a substance or contamination"]},"allegationsSummary":"The lawsuits allege that Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides made, marketed, sold, or distributed by Monsanto Canada ULC (now Bayer CropScience Inc.), Monsanto Company, and Bayer Inc. may cause non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a type of cancer. They claim the companies were negligent in the design, testing, sale, and marketing of these products and failed to warn users of the alleged health risk. The claims also allege the companies manipulated and suppressed scientific discussion about whether glyphosate causes cancer. The defendants deny that their glyphosate-based herbicides cause non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and none of the allegations has been proved in court.","proposedClassDefinition":"The certified action covers all individuals in Canada who had significant exposure to Roundup before December 8, 2023 and were diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after that exposure but before December 8, 2023. A second, more recent filing proposes a class of individuals in Canada who had significant exposure before December 8, 2023 and were diagnosed on or after that date. Both include the living spouses, children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents, and siblings of those diagnosed. Significant exposure means applying Roundup more than twice in a 12-month period and more than 10 times in a lifetime.","whatHappensNext":"The Ontario court has certified one action as a class proceeding, which means it can move forward on behalf of the class, but certification decides only that the case may proceed collectively, not who wins. The certified case is in the early stages of pretrial steps, and the deadline to opt out of it passed on July 17, 2025. The newer Ontario filing, covering people diagnosed on or after December 8, 2023, is at an earlier stage and would still need to be certified. The cases must now be resolved through the courts or by a settlement, and timelines are uncertain and often run years. No claims process exists yet, and no money is available to claim at this","caseBackground":"These lawsuits are about Roundup and other glyphosate-based weed killers sold in Canada. The claims allege that significant exposure to these herbicides may cause non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a type of cancer, and that the companies behind the products, Monsanto Canada ULC (now Bayer CropScience Inc.), Monsanto Company, and Bayer Inc., knew or should have known of this alleged risk but failed to warn the public. The claims also allege the companies worked to shape and suppress the science on glyphosate, including after an international agency classified it as a probable human carcinogen in 2015.\n\nThe Ontario Superior Court of Justice has certified a class action for people in Canada who had significant exposure to Roundup and were diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma before December 8, 2023, along with certain family members. A second Ontario claim, filed in December 2025, seeks to cover people diagnosed on or after that date and their family members. The defendants deny the allegations, and nothing has been proved in court.","faqs":[{"answer":"No action is needed to stay in either case. If you believe you had significant exposure to Roundup and were later diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, it may help to keep records of the products you used, when and how often you used them, and your diagnosis. There is no deadline to claim anything at this stage. The deadline to opt out of the certified case passed on July 17, 2025.","question":"Do I need to do anything right now?"},{"answer":"No. There is no settlement and no claims process. The certified case still has to be resolved in court or through a settlement before any compensation could become available, and nothing is certain.","question":"Is there any money available now?"},{"answer":"The certified Ontario action covers people in Canada who had significant exposure to Roundup before December 8, 2023 and were diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after that exposure but before December 8, 2023. A newer filing proposes to cover people with significant exposure before December 8, 2023 who were diagnosed on or after that date, but it has not been certified. Both include certain family members of those diagnosed.","question":"Which case might cover me?"},{"answer":"The certified case must go through the litigation, ending in a judgment or a court-approved settlement, before any claims process could exist. The newer case would also need to be certified, either on its own or as part of a settlement, before it could move forward as a class action.","question":"What has to happen before a claims process could open?"},{"answer":"Timelines are uncertain. Class actions of this kind often take years to resolve, and there is no certainty of any recovery.","question":"How long could this take?"}],"proceedings":{"body":"The court filings behind this proposed class action.","items":[{"id":"be7031197627cb0c","url":"https://kmlaw.ca/cases/roundup-class-action/","court":"Ontario Superior Court of Justice","firms":[{"name":"Koskie Minsky LLP"},{"name":"McKenzie Lake Lawyers LLP"},{"name":"Merchant Law Group LLP"}],"stage":"certified","caseName":"DeBlock v Monsanto Canada ULC et al.","dateFiled":"2019-12-20","fileNumber":"CV-699-19-CP","jurisdiction":"Ontario","dateCertified":"2023-12-08"},{"id":"f0808bf6624cbc14","url":"https://kmlaw.ca/cases/roundup-class-action/","court":"Ontario Superior Court of Justice","firms":[{"name":"Koskie Minsky LLP"},{"name":"McKenzie Lake Lawyers LLP"},{"name":"Merchant Law Group LLP"}],"stage":"filed","caseName":"Martin Johnston v. Monsanto Canada ULC, Monsanto Company and Bayer Inc.","dateFiled":"2025-12-05","fileNumber":"CV-25-00757108-00CP","jurisdiction":"Ontario"}],"heading":"The proceedings"},"plaintiffFirms":[{"name":"Koskie Minsky LLP","contacts":[]},{"name":"McKenzie Lake Lawyers LLP","contacts":[]},{"name":"Merchant Law Group LLP","contacts":[]}],"sourceDocuments":[{"url":"/uploads/ac742c3624a574186100abb2-lock-v-Monsanto-Canada-ULC-et-al-EN-Long-Form-Notice-2025.04.15-4929-3071-0073-1.pdf","title":"DeBlock-v-Monsanto-Canada-ULC-et-al-EN-Long-Form-Notice-2025.04.15-4929-3071-0073-1.pdf"},{"url":"/uploads/b8715df85a8abfaf6adbec4a-2025_12_05_Statement_of_Claim_Re_Martin_Johnston_issued.pdf","title":"2025_12_05_Statement_of_Claim_Re_Martin_Johnston_issued.pdf"}],"filedDate":"2019-12-20","certificationHearingDate":"","optOutDeadline":null,"seriousHarmEnabled":false,"quietPresentation":false,"stageChangedAt":"2026-09-24 22:09:35","lastReviewed":"2026-09-24","outcomeSummary":"","promotedSettlementSlug":"","relatedSlugs":[],"dateAdded":"2026-09-24","lastUpdated":"2026-09-24","languages":["en","fr"]},{"id":"air-canada-mobility-aids-class-action","slug":"air-canada-mobility-aids-class-action","title":"Air Canada Mobility Aids Class Action","category":"Aviation and Travel","stage":"certified","tags":{"industry":["Travel and hospitality"],"geographic":["Canada-wide"],"eligibilityTrigger":["Was a passenger or traveler"]},"allegationsSummary":"The lawsuit alleges that Air Canada systemically failed to provide the assistance its own tariffs require for passengers who rely on mobility aids such as wheelchairs and walkers, including help boarding and getting off flights, safe transfers between mobility aids and seats, pre-boarding, and careful handling of mobility aids. It claims passengers were denied assistance, moved roughly or by untrained staff, denied pre-boarding, or had their mobility aids damaged, lost or delayed. In the alternative, the claim alleges Air Canada made false or misleading statements about these services and engaged in unfair practices under consumer protection laws in several provinces. These are allegations only, and nothing has been proved in court.","proposedClassDefinition":"The lawsuit proposes a class of all Canadian residents who use a mobility aid and travelled on a flight subject to Air Canada's international or domestic tariffs from January 2021 onwards. This would include flights operated by Air Canada Rouge and Jazz Aviation LP (Air Canada Express / Air Canada Jazz).","whatHappensNext":"The court certified the case, meaning a judge decided it may proceed as a class action; certification does not decide whether the allegations are true. The case would next move toward further court steps, and possibly a trial or a settlement, and either could take years. There is no settlement and no claims process at this time, and it is uncertain whether one will ever open. Class members do not need to do anything right now.","caseBackground":"This proposed class action is about the help Air Canada is said to owe passengers who rely on mobility aids such as wheelchairs and walkers. The lawsuit, filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, alleges that Air Canada systemically failed to provide the assistance its tariffs require, including helping passengers board and get off flights, moving them safely between their mobility aids and their seats, offering pre-boarding, and transporting mobility aids without damage or loss. The lead plaintiff, Rodney Hodgins, who has spastic cerebral palsy, claims he had to physically drag himself down an aisle after Air Canada staff did not help him off a flight in 2023.\n\nThe claim alleges that Air Canada failed to develop the policies, training and oversight needed to meet these obligations and benefited financially from not meeting them. It also alleges, in the alternative, that Air Canada made false or misleading statements about these services and engaged in unfair practices contrary to consumer protection laws in several provinces. The lawsuit seeks damages and other remedies, including court orders about Air Canada's conduct. None of the allegations has been proved, and Air Canada has not been found liable.","faqs":[{"answer":"No. There is no claims process and nothing to sign up for at this stage. If the case eventually leads to a settlement or judgment, a notice process would explain any steps class members could take.","question":"Do I need to do anything right now?"},{"answer":"No. The case has not been resolved, and no settlement has been reached. Money only becomes available if the case ends in an approved settlement or a judgment in the class's favour, which may never happen.","question":"Is there any money available to claim now?"},{"answer":"The lawsuit proposes to cover all Canadian residents who use a mobility aid and travelled on a flight subject to Air Canada's international or domestic tariffs from January 2021 onwards. The exact class covered will be defined by the court.","question":"Who would the proposed class action cover?"},{"answer":"A news report states the court has certified the case, meaning it may proceed as a class action. The case would still need to be resolved through a trial or a settlement approved by the court before any claims process could open, and that could take years.","question":"What has to happen before a claims process could open?"},{"answer":"Court decisions and updates are typically shared through the class action law firms handling the case and through court notices. Checking back on this page or with the firms involved is the best way to follow developments.","question":"How can I stay informed?"}],"proceedings":{"body":"The court filing behind this class action.","items":[{"id":"9878e0994ae92567","url":"https://www.cfmlawyers.ca/class-action/air-canadas-treatment-of-people-with-mobility-aids/","court":"Supreme Court of British Columbia","firms":[{"name":"Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman LLP"}],"stage":"certified","caseName":"Rodney Hodgins v. Air Canada, Air Canada Rouge General Partner Inc., Chorus Aviation Inc., Jazz Aviation LP, Air Canada Rouge LP","dateFiled":"2024-01-11","fileNumber":"S-240224","jurisdiction":"British Columbia"}],"heading":"The proceeding"},"plaintiffFirms":[{"name":"Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman LLP","contacts":[]}],"sourceDocuments":[{"url":"/uploads/3cf5fb05c5714ee23ce47eab-AC-Mobility-Aids-Amended-Notice-of-Civil-Claim.pdf.pdf","title":"AC-Mobility-Aids-Amended-Notice-of-Civil-Claim.pdf.pdf"},{"url":"/uploads/3d21167fcb84f73837328f63-FILED-Second-Amended-Notice-of-Civil-Claim-11-Jul-2025-00995158xB33C8.pdf.pdf","title":"FILED-Second-Amended-Notice-of-Civil-Claim-11-Jul-2025-00995158xB33C8.pdf.pdf"},{"url":"/uploads/71498c90f4747b450e1f8ad0-B.C.-court-certifies-wheelchair-users-class-action-lawsuit-against-Air-Canada.pdf","title":"B.C. court certifies wheelchair users' class-action lawsuit against Air Canada.pdf"}],"filedDate":"2024-01-11","certificationHearingDate":"","optOutDeadline":null,"seriousHarmEnabled":false,"quietPresentation":false,"stageChangedAt":"2026-09-21 02:47:35","lastReviewed":"2026-09-20","outcomeSummary":"","promotedSettlementSlug":"","relatedSlugs":[],"dateAdded":"2026-09-20","lastUpdated":"2026-09-20","languages":["en","fr"]},{"id":"equifax-data-breach-class-action","slug":"equifax-data-breach-class-action","title":"Equifax Data Breach Class Action","category":"Data Breach","stage":"certified","tags":{"industry":["Banking and financial services","Privacy and data"],"geographic":["Canada-wide"],"eligibilityTrigger":["Held an account or contract"]},"allegationsSummary":"The lawsuit alleges that Equifax Canada Co. and Equifax, Inc. were negligent in setting up and running their cybersecurity systems, leaving known weaknesses unfixed, storing sensitive personal information without encryption, and failing to detect or stop a 2017 data breach that allegedly exposed the personal information of thousands of Canadians. It also alleges Equifax was warned about the problems but chose not to fix them while telling customers and the public that its cybersecurity was strong. The claim further alleges Equifax breached privacy and consumer protection laws and broke contracts with subscribers of its credit monitoring products, including Equifax Complete Advantage, Equifax Complete Premier, and Equifax Complete Friends and Family. None of these allegations has been proved in court.","proposedClassDefinition":"The certified class covers people in Canada in three groups: those whose personal information was accessed by hackers in the data breach (defined as the intrusion into Equifax computer systems from May 13, 2017 through July 30, 2017) but who did not buy an Equifax subscription product between March 7, 2017 and July 30, 2017, those who bought an Equifax subscription product between March 7, 2017 and July 30, 2017 but whose information was not accessed, and those who fit both descriptions. Subscription products include Equifax Complete Advantage, Equifax Complete Premier, Equifax Complete Friends and Family, and other Equifax products offering credit monitoring and identity theft protection.","whatHappensNext":"The Ontario court has certified the case as a class action, which means it may proceed on behalf of the class, but certification does not decide who is right. The next steps are the litigation itself, which could end in a trial, a settlement, or a dismissal. Timelines are uncertain and cases like this often take years. There is no claims process yet, and one would only open if a settlement is later reached and approved or the class wins at trial.","caseBackground":"This case is about a 2017 data breach at Equifax, a company that collects credit information and sells credit monitoring products. The lawsuit alleges that hackers got into Equifax computer systems between May 13, 2017 and July 30, 2017 and accessed the personal information of thousands of Canadians. The claim says Equifax knew about specific security weaknesses, including the one the hackers used, but did not fix them, stored sensitive information without encryption, and failed to detect or stop the intrusion, all while telling the public its cybersecurity was strong.\n\nThe plaintiffs seek money for the class for the alleged invasion of privacy, fraud and identity theft, harm to credit scores and reputation, the cost of credit monitoring, refunds of what subscribers paid for Equifax credit monitoring products, general damages for psychological distress, and punitive damages. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has certified the case as a class action, but certification only means the case may go forward as a group lawsuit. Nothing has been proved and no settlement has been reached.","faqs":[{"answer":"Usually no. The case has been certified but there is no settlement and no claims process, so most class members do not need to take any step at this stage.","question":"Do I need to do anything right now?"},{"answer":"No. The case is still being litigated and no settlement has been reached, so there is nothing to claim right now. Money could become available only if a settlement is later reached and approved or the class succeeds at trial.","question":"Is there any money available to claim now?"},{"answer":"The class covers people in Canada whose personal information was accessed by hackers in the 2017 Equifax data breach, people who bought Equifax subscription products such as credit monitoring between March 7, 2017 and July 30, 2017, and people who fall into both groups.","question":"Who is included in the class?"},{"answer":"The case has already been certified, so the next steps are the litigation itself. A claims process could open only if the parties reach a settlement that a court approves, or if the class wins at trial. Neither outcome is certain.","question":"What has to happen before a claims process could open?"},{"answer":"There is no set timeline. Class actions like this often take years to resolve, and the outcome is uncertain.","question":"When might this case be resolved?"}],"proceedings":{"body":"The court filing behind this class action.","items":[{"id":"bea3691e7088dab8","url":"https://www.sotosclassactions.com/cases/equifax/","court":"Ontario Superior Court of Justice","firms":[{"name":"Sotos LLP"}],"stage":"certified","caseName":"Alina Owsianik v. Equifax Canada Co. et al.","dateFiled":"2017-09-12","fileNumber":"CV-17-00582551-00CP","jurisdiction":"Ontario"}],"heading":"The proceeding"},"plaintiffFirms":[{"name":"Sotos LLP","contacts":[]}],"sourceDocuments":[{"url":"/uploads/8fdc0f69993c85c91d82e23e-Schedule-A-Long-Form-Notice-Updated-ENG-Updated.pdf","title":"Schedule-A-Long-Form-Notice-Updated-ENG-Updated.pdf"},{"url":"/uploads/d5aace4911d7cde5a90ae202-Schedule-A-Long-Form-Notice-Updated-FR-Updated.pdf","title":"Schedule-A-Long-Form-Notice-Updated-FR-Updated.pdf"}],"filedDate":"2017-09-12","certificationHearingDate":"2025-11-18","optOutDeadline":null,"seriousHarmEnabled":false,"quietPresentation":false,"stageChangedAt":"2026-09-21 02:23:23","lastReviewed":"2026-09-15","outcomeSummary":"","promotedSettlementSlug":"","relatedSlugs":[],"dateAdded":"2026-09-15","lastUpdated":"2026-09-20","languages":["en","fr"]},{"id":"phenylephrine-cold-medicine-proposed-class-action","slug":"phenylephrine-cold-medicine-proposed-class-action","title":"Phenylephrine Cold Medicine Proposed Class Action","category":"False or Misleading Advertising","stage":"filed","tags":{"industry":["Consumer goods","Pharmaceutical and medical devices"],"geographic":["Canada-wide"],"eligibilityTrigger":["Purchased a product"]},"allegationsSummary":"The lawsuits allege that major consumer health companies, including Johnson & Johnson (now Kenvue), Procter & Gamble, GlaxoSmithKline (now Haleon), Pfizer, and RB Health, along with several large retailers, marketed and sold oral cold and sinus medicines containing phenylephrine as decongestants even though the ingredient does not work when taken by mouth. The claims say the companies knew or should have known this from scientific studies, and point to a September 2023 United States FDA advisory finding that oral phenylephrine is not effective as a nasal decongestant. Named products include versions of Tylenol, Benylin, DayQuil, NyQuil, NeoCitran, Contac, Sudafed PE, Robitussin, Triaminic, Mucinex, and Vicks medicines. These are allegations only, and nothing has been proved in court.","proposedClassDefinition":"The lawsuits propose a class of people in Canada who bought oral cold, sinus, cough, or flu medicines containing phenylephrine that were marketed as decongestants, excluding purchases made for resale in some filings. The Quebec application covers people in Quebec who bought the listed medicines from February 1, 2007 until the case is authorized, while the British Columbia claim covers purchases across Canada outside Quebec from December 31, 1989 onward, and the Manitoba claim proposes a class of all purchasers in Canada with no defined class period. Whether anyone is included would be decided only if a court certifies or authorizes the case.","whatHappensNext":"Before any compensation could become available, a court would have to certify the case (or authorize it, in Quebec) as a class action, a step that decides only whether the lawsuits may proceed on behalf of a group. None of the three filings, in Manitoba, British Columbia, and Quebec, has reached that step yet. Timelines are uncertain and class actions often take years to resolve. There is no claims process now, and there may never be one if the cases are not certified or resolved in favour of the class.","caseBackground":"These proposed class actions are about over-the-counter cold, flu, and sinus medicines taken by mouth that contain the ingredient phenylephrine. The lawsuits allege that the companies behind well-known brands such as Tylenol, Benylin, DayQuil, NyQuil, NeoCitran, Contac, Sudafed PE, and Vicks marketed these products as nasal decongestants even though, according to the claims, phenylephrine does not relieve congestion when swallowed because it is largely broken down in the digestive system.\n\nThe claims say scientific research going back years questioned the ingredient's effectiveness, and that in September 2023 a United States FDA advisory committee concluded that oral phenylephrine is not effective as a nasal decongestant at safe doses. The lawsuits allege the manufacturers, and in one filing several major retailers, knew or should have known this and kept selling the products anyway, and they seek refunds or damages for purchasers. The Quebec filing also alleges some defendants worked together to suppress unfavourable science. None of these allegations has been tested or proved in court.","faqs":[{"answer":"No. The cases are at an early stage and there is no registration or claim form. If a court later certifies or authorizes a class action, class members would normally be included automatically and notified about their options.","question":"Do I need to do anything right now?"},{"answer":"No. These are proposed class actions with untested allegations, no court has certified them, and no settlement exists. Any compensation would depend on future court decisions or a settlement, neither of which is certain.","question":"Is there any money available to claim now?"},{"answer":"Filings exist in Manitoba, British Columbia, and Quebec. The Quebec application would cover people in Quebec who bought the listed medicines, while the Manitoba and British Columbia claims propose classes of purchasers across Canada, with the British Columbia claim excluding Quebec residents. The courts have not yet decided how the cases will proceed.","question":"Which lawsuit covers me?"},{"answer":"A court would first have to certify the case (or authorize it in Quebec) as a class action, and the case would then have to be won at trial or settled with court approval. Only then could a claims process be set up, and none of these steps are certain.","question":"What has to happen before a claims process could open?"},{"answer":"It is impossible to say. Class actions of this kind often take several years to move through certification and any trial or settlement, and no hearing dates are reported yet.","question":"When might this case resolve?"}],"proceedings":{"body":"The court filings behind this proposed class action.","items":[{"id":"8d00ebb1c8639ef6","url":"https://www.sotosclassactions.com/current-cases/","court":"The King's Bench, Winnipeg Centre","firms":[{"name":"Sotos LLP"},{"name":"Cochrane Saxberg LLP"}],"stage":"filed","caseName":"Barb Eori v. Johnson & Johnson Inc., d.b.a. McNeil Consumer Healthcare, Procter & Gamble Inc., GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare ULC, Pfizer Canada ULC, d.b.a. Pfizer Consumer Healthcare","dateFiled":"2023-11-10","fileNumber":"CI23-01-43851","jurisdiction":"Manitoba","relationship":"parallel"},{"id":"9386e2da08f403c7","url":"https://slatervecchio.com/class-action/ineffective-cold-flu-medications/","court":"Supreme Court of British Columbia","firms":[{"name":"Slater Vecchio LLP"}],"stage":"filed","caseName":"Hardeep Dhaliwal v. Johnson & Johnson Inc., Procter & Gamble Inc., GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare ULC, RB Health (Canada) Inc., Shoppers Drug Mart Inc., Wal-Mart Canada Corp., Amazon.com.ca Inc., London Drugs Limited and Loblaw Companies Limited / Les Compagnies Loblaw Limitee","dateFiled":"2023-09-22","fileNumber":"S-236558","jurisdiction":"British Columbia"},{"id":"67e5fe0700151cc1","url":"https://slatervecchio.com/class-action/ineffective-cold-flu-medications/","court":"Superior Court","firms":[{"name":"Slater Vecchio LLP"}],"stage":"filed","caseName":"Andrew Kraska v. Kenvue Canada Inc., formerly known as Johnson & Johnson Inc. et al","dateFiled":"2025-08-01","fileNumber":"500-06-001262-233","jurisdiction":"Quebec"}],"heading":"The proceedings"},"plaintiffFirms":[{"name":"Sotos LLP","contacts":[]},{"name":"Cochrane Saxberg LLP","contacts":[]},{"name":"Slater Vecchio LLP","contacts":[]}],"sourceDocuments":[{"url":"/uploads/18976c3befde666fd6500ddb-Cold-Medicine-Statement-of-Claim.pdf.pdf","title":"Cold-Medicine-Statement-of-Claim.pdf.pdf"},{"url":"/uploads/fa225ec82d7a2b5803c327b8-cold-medicine-notice-of-civil-claim.pdf.pdf","title":"cold-medicine-notice-of-civil-claim.pdf.pdf"},{"url":"/uploads/01e2f02d1d9ee851b7f35a16-cold-medicine-amended-application-for-authorization-redacted-2025-08-01.pdf","title":"cold-medicine-amended-application-for-authorization-redacted-2025-08-01-.pdf"}],"filedDate":"2023-09-14","certificationHearingDate":"","optOutDeadline":null,"seriousHarmEnabled":false,"quietPresentation":false,"stageChangedAt":"2026-09-21 00:14:32","lastReviewed":"2026-09-20","outcomeSummary":"","promotedSettlementSlug":"","relatedSlugs":[],"dateAdded":"2026-09-20","lastUpdated":"2026-09-20","languages":["en","fr"]},{"id":"google-gemini-authors-copyright-proposed-class-action","slug":"google-gemini-authors-copyright-proposed-class-action","title":"Google Gemini Authors Copyright Proposed Class Action","category":"Technology and Electronics","stage":"filed","tags":{"industry":["Technology and electronics"],"geographic":["Canada-wide"],"eligibilityTrigger":["Created or owned copyrighted work"]},"allegationsSummary":"The lawsuit alleges that Google LLC copied and exploited the written copyrighted works of Canadian writers, without licence or permission, to train its generative AI large language models, including LaMDA, PaLM 2, and Gemini. It claims Google obtained the works by crawling the internet and downloading pirate or shadow libraries such as Z-Library, Library Genesis, OceanofPDF, and Scribd, and through datasets like C4, Books1, and Books2. The claim also says Google circumvented technological protection measures on the works, concealed the conduct, and repeats it each time it trains a new model. These are allegations only, and nothing has been proved in court.","proposedClassDefinition":"The lawsuit proposes a class of all persons resident in Canada who owned the copyright, or derived any right, title or interest by assignment, to works Google used to train its large language models, up to the date the action is certified or another date the court finds appropriate. The class has not been certified, so this definition could change.","whatHappensNext":"The case has been filed in the Federal Court but no certification hearing has been scheduled yet. The next major step is a certification hearing, where the court decides only whether the case may proceed as a class action, not who wins. Timelines are uncertain and cases like this often take years to move forward. There is no claims process at this stage, and one may never open.","caseBackground":"This proposed class action, filed in the Federal Court on May 1, 2026, alleges that Google LLC used the copyrighted written works of Canadian writers without licence or permission to train its generative AI large language models, including the models behind Gemini and related products. The claim says Google gathered the works by crawling the internet, by downloading them from pirate or shadow libraries such as Z-Library, Library Genesis, OceanofPDF, and Scribd, and through training datasets like C4, Books1, and Books2.\n\nThe lawsuit also alleges that Google circumvented technological protection measures on the works, concealed the conduct, and continues to repeat it each time it trains a new model. The plaintiffs seek declarations, injunctions to stop the alleged infringement and the use of the works to train Google's models, and damages. These are untested allegations, and no court has ruled on them.","faqs":[{"answer":"No. The case was only recently filed and has not been certified as a class action, so there is nothing writers or copyright owners need to do at this stage.","question":"Do I need to do anything right now?"},{"answer":"No. The case is at the filing stage, no settlement exists, and no claims process is open. Any compensation would depend on future court decisions or a settlement, neither of which is certain.","question":"Is there any money available to claim now?"},{"answer":"The lawsuit proposes a class of people resident in Canada who owned the copyright, or acquired rights by assignment, to works Google allegedly used to train its large language models. The court has not yet approved this definition, so it could change.","question":"Who could be included if the case goes ahead?"},{"answer":"The Federal Court must first decide whether to certify the case as a class action. Even if it is certified, there would only be a claims process if the case later ends in a settlement or judgment in the class's favour, which may take years and may not happen.","question":"What has to happen before a claims process could open?"},{"answer":"You can follow updates from the court record or from the law firm handling the case, SOTOS LLP. If the case is certified, a formal notice to potential class members would normally follow.","question":"How can I stay informed about the case?"}],"proceedings":{"body":"The court filing behind this proposed class action.","items":[{"id":"6b5f7f456eea20c9","url":"https://www.sotosclassactions.com/current-cases/","court":"Federal Court","firms":[{"name":"Sotos LLP"}],"stage":"filed","caseName":"Catherine McKenzie, Kate Hilton, Ryan North, and Project Sinister Inc. v. Google LLC","dateFiled":"2026-05-01","fileNumber":"T-2212-26","jurisdiction":"Federal Court"}],"heading":"The proceeding"},"plaintiffFirms":[{"name":"Sotos LLP","contacts":[]}],"sourceDocuments":[{"url":"/uploads/4dd71e3a795e6d1dd75fd141-Statement-of-Claim.pdf","title":"Statement of Claim.pdf"}],"filedDate":"2026-05-01","certificationHearingDate":"","optOutDeadline":null,"seriousHarmEnabled":false,"quietPresentation":false,"stageChangedAt":"2026-09-16 01:26:40","lastReviewed":"2026-09-15","outcomeSummary":"","promotedSettlementSlug":"","relatedSlugs":[],"dateAdded":"2026-09-15","lastUpdated":"2026-09-15","languages":["en","fr"]},{"id":"ai-image-generator-copyright-proposed-class-action","slug":"ai-image-generator-copyright-proposed-class-action","title":"AI Image Generator Copyright Proposed Class Action","category":"Technology and Electronics","stage":"filed","tags":{"industry":["Technology and electronics"],"geographic":["Canada-wide"],"eligibilityTrigger":["Created or owned copyrighted work"]},"allegationsSummary":"The lawsuit alleges that Stability AI Ltd., Midjourney, Inc., Google LLC, and Runway AI, Inc. infringed the copyright and moral rights of Canadian artists by scraping and copying hundreds of millions of copyrighted images, including images linked in the LAION-400M and LAION-5B datasets, to train their commercial AI image generators, including Stable Diffusion, Stable Assistant, Midjourney, Imagen, and Runway. It also claims the image generators reproduce copyrighted works or recognizable parts of them and mimic artists' distinctive styles in response to user prompts, and that the defendants encouraged users to write prompts using artists' names. The plaintiff seeks damages, a portion of the defendants' profits, and court orders stopping the alleged infringement. These are allegations only, and nothing has been proved in court.","proposedClassDefinition":"The lawsuit proposes a class of people resident in Canada, and corporations domiciled in Canada or incorporated under Canadian law, who owned a copyrighted work linked within the LAION-400M dataset (from August 20, 2021 onward) or the LAION-5B dataset (from March 31, 2022 onward), or who owned a copyrighted work that any of the defendants used to train an image generator at any time before certification. The defendants and their affiliated companies would be excluded.","whatHappensNext":"The next major step is a certification hearing, where the Federal Court decides only whether the case may proceed as a class action, not who wins. No certification hearing has been scheduled yet. Timelines for cases like this are uncertain and often run years, and there is no claims process at this stage. If the court certifies the action and the case later ends in a settlement or judgment favourable to the class, a claims process could follow.","caseBackground":"This proposed class action is about how popular AI image generators were built and what they produce. The claim, filed in the Federal Court of Canada, alleges that Stability AI, Midjourney, Google, and Runway AI scraped, copied, and downloaded hundreds of millions of copyrighted images from the internet, including images linked in two large datasets known as LAION-400M and LAION-5B, and used them without permission to train commercial AI image generators such as Stable Diffusion, Midjourney, Imagen, and Runway.\n\nThe lawsuit also alleges that the tools themselves infringe when they are used, claiming they can reproduce copyrighted works or recognizable parts of them and mimic artists' distinctive styles when users type prompts, and that the defendants encouraged users to include artists' names in prompts. The claim says the companies profited from this conduct and concealed it from the artists affected. The plaintiff seeks damages and orders stopping the alleged infringement. None of these allegations has been tested or proved in court.","faqs":[{"answer":"Usually no. The case has only been filed and has not been certified as a class action, so there is nothing for potential class members to sign up for or claim at this stage.","question":"Do I need to do anything right now?"},{"answer":"No. The case is at an early stage, nothing has been decided, and no settlement exists, so there is no compensation to claim right now and there may never be.","question":"Is there any money available to claim now?"},{"answer":"The lawsuit proposes to cover Canadian residents and Canadian companies that owned copyrighted works linked in the LAION-400M or LAION-5B datasets, or works any of the defendants allegedly used to train an AI image generator. The court has not yet decided whether the case will proceed or who it covers.","question":"Who might be covered by this case?"},{"answer":"The Federal Court would first have to certify the case as a class action, and the case would then have to end in a settlement approved by the court or a judgment in favour of the class. Neither step is certain, and either could take years.","question":"What has to happen before a claims process could open?"},{"answer":"You can follow updates on this page or check with the law firm handling the case, SOTOS LLP. If the case moves forward, court-approved notices would explain who is covered and any steps to take.","question":"How can I stay informed?"}],"proceedings":{"body":"The court filing behind this proposed class action.","items":[{"id":"7ce2b14ebc63c84c","url":"https://www.sotosclassactions.com/current-cases/","court":"Federal Court","firms":[{"name":"Sotos LLP"}],"stage":"filed","caseName":"Mark Gagné v. Stability AI Ltd., Midjourney, Inc., Google LLC, and Runway AI, Inc.","dateFiled":"2025-07-29","fileNumber":"T-2676-25","jurisdiction":"Federal Court"}],"heading":"The proceeding"},"plaintiffFirms":[{"name":"Sotos LLP","contacts":[]}],"sourceDocuments":[{"url":"/uploads/5ccef45646f801db82f4c201-AI-Image-Amended-Statement-of-Claim-16APR2026.pdf","title":"AI-Image-Amended-Statement-of-Claim-16APR2026.pdf"}],"filedDate":"2025-07-29","certificationHearingDate":"","optOutDeadline":null,"seriousHarmEnabled":false,"quietPresentation":false,"stageChangedAt":"2026-09-16 01:05:02","lastReviewed":"2026-09-15","outcomeSummary":"","promotedSettlementSlug":"","relatedSlugs":[],"dateAdded":"2026-09-15","lastUpdated":"2026-09-15","languages":["en","fr"]},{"id":"uber-sexual-assault-proposed-class-action","slug":"uber-sexual-assault-proposed-class-action","title":"Uber Sexual Assault Proposed Class Action","category":"Personal Injury","stage":"filed","tags":{"industry":["Consumer services","Travel and hospitality"],"geographic":["Canada-wide"],"eligibilityTrigger":["Was a passenger or traveler","Experienced abuse or harm"]},"allegationsSummary":"The lawsuit alleges that Uber Canada Inc., Uber Technologies, Inc., Uber Holdings Canada Inc., Uber Rasier Canada Inc., and Rasier, LLC failed to protect passengers from sexual assault, sexual misconduct, and other attacks by Uber drivers paired through the Uber App. It claims Uber misrepresented the safety of its rideshare services, including through advertising aimed at women and intoxicated passengers and through a Safe Rides Fee said to fund safety measures, and that its driver screening lacked fingerprinting, interviews, and training. The claim seeks damages and court orders requiring Uber to adopt adequate safety measures. These are allegations only, and nothing has been proved in court.","proposedClassDefinition":"The lawsuit proposes a class of all persons in Canada who used Uber's rideshare services and were sexually assaulted, assaulted, battered, raped, kidnapped, forcibly confined, stalked, harassed, otherwise attacked or subjected to other sexual misconduct by an Uber driver with whom they had been paired through the Uber App. This is a proposed definition, and the court has not yet decided who would be included.","whatHappensNext":"The next major step is a certification hearing, where a Manitoba court will decide whether the case may proceed as a class action. Certification decides only whether the lawsuit can go forward on behalf of the proposed class, not whether the allegations are true. No certification hearing date has been reported yet, and timelines like this are uncertain and often run for years. There is no settlement and no claims process at this stage.","caseBackground":"This proposed class action was filed in Manitoba against Uber Canada Inc., Uber Technologies, Inc., Uber Holdings Canada Inc., Uber Rasier Canada Inc., and Rasier, LLC. The lawsuit alleges that Uber failed to protect passengers from sexual assault, sexual misconduct, and other attacks by drivers on its platform, and that it misrepresented how safe its rideshare services were, including in advertising aimed at women and intoxicated passengers and through a Safe Rides Fee described as funding safety measures.\n\nThe claim says Uber's driver screening did not include fingerprinting, interviews, or training, that Uber resisted adopting effective safety measures, and that it failed to warn passengers of the risks. The representative plaintiff, a Winnipeg resident, alleges she was sexually assaulted by an Uber driver in December 2023 after an UberX ride. The lawsuit seeks damages and orders requiring Uber to put adequate safety measures in place. None of the allegations has been tested or proved in court.","faqs":[{"answer":"Usually no. The case has only been filed and has not been certified as a class action, so there is nothing you need to sign up for or claim at this stage.","question":"Do I need to do anything right now?"},{"answer":"No. There is no settlement and no claims process, and it is not certain there ever will be. Money could become available only if the case is certified and later succeeds at trial or settles with court approval.","question":"Is there any money available now?"},{"answer":"The lawsuit proposes to cover people across Canada who used Uber's rideshare services and were sexually assaulted, attacked, or subjected to other sexual misconduct by an Uber driver they were paired with through the Uber App. The court has not yet decided whether the case will proceed or who would be included.","question":"Who would the proposed class action cover?"},{"answer":"The court must first decide whether to certify the case as a class action. Even if it is certified, a claims process could open only after a trial result in favour of the class or a court-approved settlement, and neither of those is certain.","question":"What has to happen before a claims process could open?"},{"answer":"You can follow updates on this page or check with the law firm handling the case. If the case is certified, class members are typically notified about their options.","question":"How can I stay informed?"}],"proceedings":{"body":"The court filing behind this proposed class action.","items":[{"id":"9f3fda071a413d6d","url":"https://clg.org/Class-Action/List-of-Class-Actions/Uber-Sexual-Assault-Canadian-Class-Action","court":"The King's Bench, Winnipeg Centre","firms":[{"name":"Consumer Law Group PC"}],"stage":"filed","caseName":"C.K. v. Uber Canada Inc., Uber Technologies, Inc., Uber Holdings Canada Inc., Uber Rasier Canada Inc., and Rasier, LLC","dateFiled":"2024-03-15","fileNumber":"CI24-01-45539","jurisdiction":"Manitoba"}],"heading":"The proceeding"},"plaintiffFirms":[{"name":"Consumer Law Group PC","contacts":[]}],"sourceDocuments":[{"url":"/uploads/9692a926758b84e4c6479636-Statement-of-Claim-Canada.pdf","title":"Statement-of-Claim-Canada.pdf"}],"filedDate":"2024-03-15","certificationHearingDate":"","optOutDeadline":null,"seriousHarmEnabled":false,"quietPresentation":false,"stageChangedAt":"2026-09-15 23:27:28","lastReviewed":"2026-09-15","outcomeSummary":"","promotedSettlementSlug":"","relatedSlugs":[],"dateAdded":"2026-09-15","lastUpdated":"2026-09-15","languages":["en","fr"]},{"id":"apple-siri-privacy-proposed-class-action","slug":"apple-siri-privacy-proposed-class-action","title":"Apple Siri Privacy Proposed Class Action","category":"Privacy","stage":"filed","tags":{"industry":["Privacy and data"],"geographic":["Canada-wide (Except Quebec)"],"eligibilityTrigger":["Purchased a product","Family member of an affected person"]},"allegationsSummary":"The lawsuit alleges that Apple's Siri voice assistant, preloaded on devices such as iPhones, iPads, Apple Watches, HomePod speakers, AirPods, iMacs and MacBooks, is routinely triggered by accident and records users' private conversations without their knowledge or consent. It claims Apple shared these accidentally recorded conversations with third parties, including contractors and advertisers, as part of a quality improvement program. The claim also says Apple told users and the US Congress that its devices only listen after a clear trigger, and alleges those statements were false. The defendants are Apple Inc. and Apple Canada Inc., and none of these allegations has been proved in court.","proposedClassDefinition":"The lawsuit proposes a class of all people living in Canada, except Quebec, who currently own or previously owned or purchased an Apple device with Siri, or who are members of such an owner's household, and whose confidential or private communications were obtained by Apple or shared with third parties by Apple without their consent from October 12, 2011 onward. This is a proposed definition and could change if the court certifies the case.","whatHappensNext":"The next major step is a certification hearing, where the Supreme Court of British Columbia will decide whether the case may go forward as a class action. Certification decides only whether the case can proceed on behalf of the proposed class, not whether Apple did anything wrong. No certification hearing has been scheduled yet, and timelines like this often run years. There is no settlement and no claims process at this stage, and one may never open.","caseBackground":"This proposed class action is about Apple's Siri voice assistant, which comes preloaded on Apple devices including iPhones, iPads, Apple Watches, HomePod smart speakers, AirPods, iMacs and MacBooks. The lawsuit alleges that Siri is often triggered by accident, without the wake phrase or a button press, and that when this happens it records people's private conversations without their knowledge or consent. It further alleges that Apple disclosed some of these recordings to third parties, including contractors and advertisers, as part of a program to improve Siri's quality.\n\nThe claim also says Apple assured users, and told the US Congress, that its devices only listen after a clear trigger, and alleges those assurances were false. The plaintiff asks the court to certify the case as a class action and seeks damages under privacy and consumer protection laws, damages for intrusion upon seclusion, punitive damages, and an order stopping the alleged practices. These are untested allegations, and nothing has been proved in court.","faqs":[{"answer":"No. At this stage there is nothing for potential class members to sign up for or claim. If the court certifies the case as a class action, people who fit the class definition would normally be included automatically and notified about their options.","question":"Do I need to do anything right now?"},{"answer":"No. The case has only been filed, there is no settlement, and no claims process exists. Any compensation would depend on the court certifying the case and the lawsuit later succeeding or settling, neither of which is certain.","question":"Is there any money available to claim now?"},{"answer":"The lawsuit proposes to cover people living in Canada, except Quebec, who own or owned an Apple device with Siri, or members of their households, and whose private communications were allegedly obtained or shared by Apple without consent since October 12, 2011. The court would have to approve any final class definition.","question":"Who would the proposed class action cover?"},{"answer":"The court must first decide at a certification hearing whether the case may proceed as a class action. After that, the case would have to be won at trial or settled, and any settlement would need court approval, before any claims process could be set up.","question":"What has to happen before a claims process could open?"},{"answer":"There is no set timeline. Class actions of this kind often take several years to move through certification and beyond, and the outcome is uncertain.","question":"How long might this take?"}],"proceedings":{"body":"The court filing behind this proposed class action.","items":[{"id":"7ec41f84ebe77c03","url":"https://clg.org/Class-Action/List-of-Class-Actions/Apple-Siri-App-Privacy-Violation-Canadian-Class-Action","court":"Supreme Court of British Columbia","firms":[{"name":"Consumer Law Group PC"}],"stage":"filed","caseName":"Patterson v. Apple Inc. and Apple Canada Inc.","dateFiled":"2025-01-28","fileNumber":"VLC-S-S-250693","jurisdiction":"British Columbia"}],"heading":"The proceeding"},"plaintiffFirms":[{"name":"Consumer Law Group PC","contacts":[]}],"sourceDocuments":[{"url":"/uploads/22e7d007bfb97a519bdc6932-Notice-of-Civil-Claim.pdf","title":"Notice-of-Civil-Claim.pdf"}],"filedDate":"2025-01-28","certificationHearingDate":"","optOutDeadline":null,"seriousHarmEnabled":false,"quietPresentation":false,"stageChangedAt":"2026-09-15 23:08:03","lastReviewed":"2026-09-15","outcomeSummary":"","promotedSettlementSlug":"","relatedSlugs":[],"dateAdded":"2026-09-15","lastUpdated":"2026-09-15","languages":["en","fr"]},{"id":"talc-baby-powder-class-action","slug":"talc-baby-powder-class-action","title":"Talc Baby Powder Class Action","category":"Product Liability and Defects","stage":"certified","tags":{"industry":["Consumer goods","Pharmaceutical and medical devices"],"geographic":["Canada-wide"],"eligibilityTrigger":["Purchased a product","Was exposed to a substance or contamination","Family member of an affected person"]},"allegationsSummary":"The lawsuits allege that Johnson & Johnson and related companies sold talc-based Johnson's Baby Powder without adequately warning users about potential health risks. The claims say that using the powder in the perineal (genital) area over a prolonged period increased users' chances of developing epithelial ovarian cancer. The plaintiffs allege negligence, including failure to warn and negligent testing, design and manufacturing, along with breaches of consumer protection laws and the federal Competition Act, and they seek damages. None of these allegations has been proved in court.","proposedClassDefinition":"The British Columbia court certified the case as a multi-jurisdictional class action for persons in Canada, other than Quebec residents, who used Johnson's Baby Powder in the perineal (genital) region and were later diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer, with a class period ending September 23, 2024. A separate Quebec proceeding was authorized in 2018 for Quebec residents. The Ontario court certified its action in March 2026 for a broader class: all persons resident in Canada, including Quebec, who purchased or used Johnson's Baby Powder perineally, with a subclass for those later diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer, and a family subclass. The Ontario class definition is set out in the court's certification decisions of June 2025 and March 2026. Johnson & Johnson is appealing the Ontario certification decision, so the class definition could change.","whatHappensNext":"Courts in British Columbia and Ontario have certified these cases as class actions, which means they may move forward toward trial or another resolution on behalf of the class. Certification decides only that the case can proceed as a class action; it does not decide whether the allegations are true. The court materials also mention proceedings in Quebec (authorized but apparently dormant) and Alberta (dormant). There is no settlement and no claims process yet, and timelines are uncertain and often run years. According to class counsel, Johnson & Johnson is appealing the Ontario certification decision. No notice of certification or opt-out period has been announced.","caseBackground":"These class actions concern talc-based Johnson's Baby Powder. The lawsuits allege that Johnson & Johnson and related companies marketed the powder without adequate warnings, and that using it in the perineal (genital) area increased users' chances of developing epithelial ovarian cancer. The claims allege negligence, including failure to warn, and breaches of provincial consumer protection laws and the federal Competition Act.\n\nCases were filed in more than one province over the same alleged conduct. The Supreme Court of British Columbia certified its case as a multi-jurisdictional class action in September 2024, excluding Quebec residents, and the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified its case in March 2026. The two certified classes differ in scope. The Ontario class is broader: it includes Quebec residents and does not require a cancer diagnosis or a minimum period of use. The BC class is limited to people diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer after long-term use. The court materials also refer to a Quebec case authorized in 2018 and an Alberta case filed in 2019; the Ontario court noted in March 2026 that neither appeared to have advanced.\n\nCertification means only that the cases may proceed as class actions. None of the allegations has been proved, and there is nothing to file at this stage.","faqs":[{"answer":"Usually no. The cases have been certified as class actions but there is no settlement and no claims process, so there is nothing to sign up for or claim at this stage.","question":"Do I need to do anything right now?"},{"answer":"No. Certification only allows the cases to proceed as class actions; it does not decide whether the allegations are true or provide any compensation. Money could become available only if the plaintiffs win at trial or if a settlement is later reached and approved.","question":"Is there any money available now?"},{"answer":"It depends on the proceeding. The Ontario class, certified in March 2026, includes all persons resident in Canada who purchased Johnson's Baby Powder for female perineal use or used it on the female perineum. It also has a subclass for those later diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer, and a family subclass for certain relatives. The British Columbia class is narrower: persons in Canada, other than Quebec residents, who used the powder perineally and were later diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer. The Ontario certification is under appeal, so the class definitions could change.","question":"Who might be included in the class?"},{"answer":"The certified cases would need to be resolved, either by a trial that the class wins or by a settlement that a court approves. Only then could a claims process be set up, and there is no certainty that will happen.","question":"What has to happen before a claims process could open?"},{"answer":"It is impossible to say. Class actions of this kind often take years to resolve, and no timeline is stated in the court materials.","question":"When might this case resolve?"}],"proceedings":{"body":"The court filings behind the proposed class actions.","items":[{"id":"9242187b30b1eecd","url":"https://rochongenova.com/cases/talc-powder-class-action/","court":"Ontario Superior Court of Justice","firms":[{"name":"Rochon Genova LLP"},{"name":"Howie Sacks & Henry LLP"}],"stage":"certified","caseName":"Strathdee v. Johnson & Johnson Inc.","dateFiled":"2016-05-18","fileNumber":"CV-16-00553046-00CP","jurisdiction":"Ontario","relationship":"parallel","dateCertified":"2026-03-04"},{"id":"bb62b9609b677357","url":"https://www.merchantlaw.com/class-actions-recours-collectif-canada/johnson-baby-powder-ovarian-cancer","court":"Supreme Court of British Columbia","firms":[{"name":"Merchant Law Group LLP"}],"stage":"certified","caseName":"Ennis v. Johnson & Johnson","dateFiled":"2016-03-24","fileNumber":"S179011","jurisdiction":"British Columbia","relationship":"parallel","dateCertified":"2024-09-23"}],"heading":"The proceedings"},"plaintiffFirms":[{"name":"Rochon Genova LLP","contacts":[]},{"name":"Howie Sacks & Henry LLP","contacts":[]},{"name":"Merchant Law Group LLP","contacts":[]}],"sourceDocuments":[{"url":"/uploads/899bacdd45d839458f8e53db-2026onsc1186-certification.pdf","title":"2026onsc1186-certification.pdf"},{"url":"/uploads/7036fbd83e0cc1e72b467577-BC-Certification.pdf","title":"BC Certification.pdf"}],"filedDate":"","certificationHearingDate":"","optOutDeadline":null,"seriousHarmEnabled":false,"quietPresentation":false,"stageChangedAt":"2026-09-15 17:29:34","lastReviewed":"2026-09-15","outcomeSummary":"","promotedSettlementSlug":"","relatedSlugs":[],"dateAdded":"2026-09-15","lastUpdated":"2026-09-25","languages":["en","fr"]},{"id":"adobe-subscription-plan-class-action","slug":"adobe-subscription-plan-class-action","title":"Adobe Subscription Plan Proposed Class Action","category":"Consumer Protection","stage":"filed","tags":{"industry":["Consumer services","Technology and electronics"],"geographic":["Canada-wide"],"eligibilityTrigger":["Used a service","Held an account or contract"]},"allegationsSummary":"The lawsuits allege that Adobe Inc. and Adobe Systems Canada Inc. enrolled customers in Annual Billed Monthly (ABM) software subscriptions without properly disclosing that the plans are one-year commitments, presenting them instead as monthly plans. They claim Adobe hid key terms such as automatic renewal and an early termination fee of half the fees remaining in the subscription year, and deliberately made cancelling difficult through a complex, obstructive process. The claims say this conduct breaks consumer protection and competition laws. These are allegations only, and nothing has been proved in court.","proposedClassDefinition":"The lawsuits propose a class of people across Canada who were enrolled in an Annual Billed Monthly (ABM) subscription for an Adobe product and who either paid an early cancellation fee, or started the cancellation process but did not complete it and then paid the fee for the full year, whether because they refused to pay the early cancellation fee or because they faced prohibitive obstacles to cancelling. The Ontario case would cover residents of Canada outside Quebec, while a separate Quebec proceeding would cover Quebec residents.","whatHappensNext":"Both cases were recently filed and no court has decided whether they can go ahead as class actions. The Ontario case must first be certified, and the Quebec case must be authorized, steps that decide only whether the cases may proceed on behalf of a class, not who wins. These steps have not been scheduled, and timelines are uncertain and often run years. There is no claims process now, and one may never open unless the cases succeed or a settlement is later reached and approved.","caseBackground":"Adobe sells software through subscriptions, including a plan called Annual Billed Monthly (ABM), which the lawsuits describe as billed each month while committing the customer to a full year. Two proposed class actions, one in Ontario and one in Quebec, allege that Adobe presented these plans as ordinary monthly subscriptions and did not clearly disclose the one-year commitment, the automatic renewal, or the early termination fee charged when a customer cancels partway through the year.\n\nThe lawsuits also claim that Adobe designed its cancellation process to be deliberately complicated, using so-called dark patterns that discourage or block customers from cancelling. They point to similar concerns raised by regulators in the United States and the United Kingdom over the same practices. The plaintiffs seek refunds of subscription payments and cancellation fees, other damages, and court orders requiring clearer disclosure. None of the allegations has been tested or proved in court.","faqs":[{"answer":"No. The cases have only been filed and no court has certified or authorized them as class actions, so there is nothing to sign up for or claim at this stage.","question":"Do I need to do anything right now?"},{"answer":"No. There is no settlement and no claims process, and nothing about the outcome is certain. The lawsuits seek refunds and damages, but a court would have to allow the cases to proceed and they would have to succeed or settle first.","question":"Is there any money available now?"},{"answer":"The Ontario case proposes to cover people in Canada outside Quebec who were enrolled in an Adobe Annual Billed Monthly subscription and paid an early cancellation fee or faced obstacles cancelling, while the Quebec case proposes to cover Quebec residents in the same situation.","question":"Which case covers me?"},{"answer":"The Ontario court must certify the case and the Quebec court must authorize it, which only decides whether each case can proceed as a class action. After that, the cases would have to end in a judgment for the class or a settlement approved by the court before any claims process could exist.","question":"What has to happen before a claims process could open?"},{"answer":"There is no way to know. Class actions often take years to move through certification or authorization and any trial or settlement, and these cases are at the very beginning.","question":"How long could this take?"}],"proceedings":{"body":"The court filings behind this proposed class action.","items":[{"id":"cdd296c198dcd456","url":"https://clg.org/Class-Action/List-of-Class-Actions/Adobe-Subscription-Plan-Canadian-Class-Action","court":"Superior Court of Quebec","firms":[{"name":"Consumer Law Group Inc.","region":"Quebec"}],"stage":"filed","caseName":"L. Hamel-Roy v. Adobe Inc. and Adobe Systems Canada Inc.","dateFiled":"2026-05-07","fileNumber":"500-06-000027-264","jurisdiction":"Quebec","relationship":"parallel"},{"id":"419f23ec821b1e1a","url":"https://clg.org/Class-Action/List-of-Class-Actions/Adobe-Subscription-Plan-Canadian-Class-Action","court":"Ontario Superior Court of Justice","firms":[{"name":"Consumer Law Group P.C."}],"stage":"filed","caseName":"F. Rehman v. Adobe Inc. and Adobe Systems Canada Inc.","dateFiled":"2026-05-07","fileNumber":"CV-26-00103995-00CP","jurisdiction":"Ontario","relationship":"parallel"}],"heading":"The proceedings"},"plaintiffFirms":[{"name":"Consumer Law Group Inc.","contacts":[],"region":"Quebec"},{"name":"Consumer Law Group P.C.","contacts":[]}],"sourceDocuments":[{"url":"/uploads/e95a49830a35f3f22f201e5a-Application-for-Authorization.pdf","title":"Application-for-Authorization.pdf"},{"url":"/uploads/3883420c22a7d81853a521c9-Statement-of-Claim.pdf","title":"Statement-of-Claim.pdf"}],"filedDate":"2026-05-07","certificationHearingDate":"","optOutDeadline":null,"seriousHarmEnabled":false,"quietPresentation":false,"stageChangedAt":"2026-09-15 15:18:00","lastReviewed":"2026-09-15","outcomeSummary":"","promotedSettlementSlug":"","relatedSlugs":[],"dateAdded":"2026-09-15","lastUpdated":"2026-09-15","languages":["en","fr"]},{"id":"maple-syrup-adulteration","slug":"maple-syrup-adulteration","title":"Maple Syrup Mislabelling Proposed Class Action","category":"Consumer Protection","stage":"certification_pending","tags":{"industry":["Consumer goods"],"geographic":["Canada-wide"],"eligibilityTrigger":["Purchased a product"]},"allegationsSummary":"The lawsuit alleges that 9227-8712 Québec inc., a maple syrup producer operating in Quebec, sold cans of maple syrup labelled as \"pure\" and \"from Quebec\" that were actually diluted with cane sugar or sourced in whole or in part from outside Quebec. It also alleges that grocery companies Metro Inc., Sobeys Group Inc., Groupe Épicia Inc. and Loblaw Companies Limited distributed or sold this syrup in their stores. The plaintiff seeks cancellation of the sales, refunds, compensatory damages and punitive damages. These are allegations only, and nothing has been proved in court.","proposedClassDefinition":"The lawsuit proposes a class of all persons in Canada who, since October 5, 2010, purchased a can of maple syrup produced by 9227-8712 Québec inc., including those who purchased such a can in an establishment operated by Metro inc., Sobeys Group inc., Groupe Épicia Inc. or Loblaw Companies Limited. This definition could change before the court decides whether to authorize the case.","whatHappensNext":"The next step is an authorization hearing, where the Superior Court of Québec will decide whether the case may proceed as a class action. Authorization decides only whether the lawsuit can go forward on behalf of the proposed class; it does not decide who wins. Timelines are uncertain and class actions often take years to resolve. No claims process exists at this stage, and one may never open.","caseBackground":"This proposed class action concerns cans of maple syrup produced by 9227-8712 Québec inc., a producer in the Montérégie region of Quebec that does business under names including Érablière Steve Bourdeau, Le sirop Angela and L'Érabeille. The lawsuit alleges that the syrup was labelled and sold as \"pure\" maple syrup and as a product \"from Quebec\", but that testing reported in a Radio-Canada Enquête investigation and by the ACER research centre suggests the syrup was mixed with cane sugar or came in whole or in large part from outside Quebec. The claim says buyers relied on the labels and would not have bought the cans, or would not have paid the same price, had they known.\n\nThe application was filed in the Superior Court of Québec against the producer and against Metro Inc., Sobeys Group Inc., Groupe Épicia Inc. and Loblaw Companies Limited, grocery companies that are alleged to have distributed or sold the syrup in their stores. The plaintiff, a Quebec resident who says she bought several of the cans, asks the court to authorize a Canada-wide class action seeking refunds of the purchase price, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and an order stopping the producer from selling syrup labelled \"pure\", \"Grade A\" or \"from Quebec\". None of the allegations has been tested or proved in court.","faqs":[{"answer":"No. There is nothing you need to do at this stage. If the court authorizes the class action, notices will explain any steps class members may need to take, but it could help to keep receipts or other proof of your maple syrup purchases in case they are needed later.","question":"Do I need to do anything right now?"},{"answer":"No. This is a proposed class action, and no settlement or judgment exists. Money could become available only if the case is authorized and later succeeds or settles, none of which is certain.","question":"Is there any money available to claim now?"},{"answer":"The Superior Court of Québec must first decide whether to authorize the case as a class action. Even if it is authorized, the case would then have to be won at trial or settled, and any settlement would need court approval, before any claims process could open.","question":"What has to happen before a claims process could open?"},{"answer":"There is no set timeline. Class actions often take years to move through authorization, trial or settlement, and it is possible the case will not succeed at all.","question":"When might this case resolve?"},{"answer":"Quebec class actions are entered in the national class action registry, and the plaintiff is represented by the law firm Slater Vecchio, which can be contacted about the case. If the case is authorized, the court will order notices to be published for class members.","question":"How can I stay informed about the case?"}],"proceedings":{"body":"The proposed class action is based on an application for authorization filed in the Superior Court of Québec, district of Montréal, later amended.","items":[{"id":"h98vha14kmu3cyl4p","url":"https://slatervecchio.com/class-action/fake-maple-syrup-class-action/","court":"Superior Court of Québec (Cour supérieure du Québec)","stage":"certification_pending","caseName":"Maude Fraser-Jodoin c. 9227-8712 Québec inc., Metro Inc., Sobeys Group Inc., Groupe Épicia Inc. et Loblaw Companies Limited","fileNumber":"500-06-000018-263"}],"heading":"The proceedings"},"plaintiffFirms":[{"name":"Slater Vecchio LLP","contacts":[]}],"sourceDocuments":[{"url":"/uploads/22dac8d4fa14e3d47612b430-2026-08-03-demande-dautorisation-modifiee_redacted.pdf","title":"Amended application for authorization to institute a class action, Superior Court of Québec"}],"filedDate":"2026-04-02","certificationHearingDate":"","optOutDeadline":null,"seriousHarmEnabled":false,"quietPresentation":false,"stageChangedAt":"2026-08-27 02:40:59","lastReviewed":"2026-08-26","outcomeSummary":"","promotedSettlementSlug":"","relatedSlugs":[],"dateAdded":"2026-08-26","lastUpdated":"2026-09-15","languages":["en","fr"]}]}