Is Bobak Sausage Co Settlement Class Action Legit? Read This
Did you receive the Bobak Sausage Co. Settlement email? It is not a scam. You received the mail because you filed a claim.
In case you’ve forgotten, Bobak Sausage Co. has reached an agreement to pay a sum of approximately $238,000 to settle claims that they violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). The claims arose from their practice of requiring employee finger scans for timekeeping purposes.
Who Is Eligible For The Bobak Sausage Co Settlement
The settlement is good news for about 297 individuals who worked at Bobak Sausage Co in Illinois. If you’re one of them and you used any software, systems, or devices at the company between May 5, 2015, and September 1, 2020, which required your hand or any kind of biometric identifier, then you may be eligible for benefits from the settlement.
How Much Is Settlement
The company have agreed to a class action settlement of $237,500 to resolve the allegations related to the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA).
Here’s what you need to know about the settlement: as a class member, you have the opportunity to receive an equal share of the net settlement fund. According to the estimates provided by the class counsel, each class member is expected to receive around $419. However, the actual payment amount may vary depending on the total number of class members who participate in the settlement. It’s possible that the final payments could be higher or lower depending on the final count
How To File A Claim For The Bobak Sausage Co Settlement
If you want to get a settlement payment. Make sure to fill out a valid claim form by August 31, 2023.. That’s the deadline, so don’t miss it!
If you are eligible for the claim click here
Conclusion
In conclusion Andres Marquez, et al. v. Bobak Sausage Co., Case No. 2020 CH 4259 class action lawsuit is not a scam. Just like Transact FCRA Settlement, however, this lawsuit stems from accusations that Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). The claims arose from their practice of requiring employee finger scans for timekeeping purpose