A class-action lawsuit against food and drink giant A&W could lead to compensation for millions of people.

Read on to discover why the corporation got into trouble, how much money the court has ordered them to pay, and whether you're eligible for a check.

All dollar amounts in US dollars.

A judge in New York has preliminarily approved a settlement to proceed in a lawsuit involving the maker of popular soft drinks. The class-action lawsuit was initially filed against A&W Concentrate Company, the producer of A&W Root Beer and Cream Sodas, in August 2020. 

It claims the drinks maker “misleadingly stated on the front of the products’ labels” that its root beers and cream sodas were "Made With Aged Vanilla" – despite the vanilla taste being created using an artificial flavoring.

A&W has denied the claims, but now the court has sided with the claimants. It ruled that the corporation must pay a settlement of $15 million to customers who bought any A&W root beer or cream soda product that featured "Made With Aged Vanilla" on its label between 7 February 2016 and 2 June 2023.

Customers who can provide a receipt for their purchase are entitled to up to $25 in compensation, while customers who have no proof of purchase can receive a cash payment of $5.50. A&W has also been ordered to pay the original plaintiff LaShawn Sharpe, and her subsequent co-plaintiffs Jim Castoro and Steve Dailey, $5,000 each, in addition to covering their legal fees.

The lawyer representing the trio, Spencer Sheehan, is no stranger to these kinds of cases. Dubbed the "Vanilla Vigilante," Sheehan has filed around 100 lawsuits over the use of vanilla flavorings in products, according to Business Insider. But it's not just food and drinks companies that have come under fire in US courts.

From the disgraced Purdue Pharma to Google Search, read on to discover the other American companies that were ordered to make big payouts to their customers. 

When LA resident Trish Wiener bought products from Dannon’s Activia and DanActive yoghurt brands, which claimed to be clinically proven to help regulate digestion and boost immunity, she was disappointed to find no positive effect. So she filed a lawsuit against the company.

Dannon had started marketing Activia and its “bifidus regularis” bacteria in early 2006. Yet Wiener’s lawsuit claimed Dannon’s marketing department invented the words “immunitas” and “regularis” and used them because they "sound scientific."

Both yogurts sell at a 30% premium over other brands because of their supposed nutritional benefits, which meant that Wiener was able to claim for an “economic injury” because she spent more money than she otherwise would have done based on the company’s claims.

The legal battle lasted two years, culminating in a class action settlement that was reached in federal court. The presiding judge ruled that Dannon would have to pay its customers up to $45 million (almost $63m today) in damages and remove the word “immunity” from its labels.

Rice Krispies is one of the world's most beloved breakfast cereals. But when a 2009 ad campaign for the cereal claimed it could boost children's immunity, Oregon's attorney general – as well as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and a number of private individuals – took issue with the claim, saying it wasn't backed up by scientific evidence. These lawsuits became one large class action lawsuit that wound up in the California federal court. 

Plaintiffs argued that Rice Krispies did not have evidence to support its claims, and that Kellogg's had failed to disclose any information which indicated health or immunity benefits. In 2011 Kellogg's settled for $5 million, half of which would be given to people who purchased its products. That's the equivalent of $6.8 million in 2023.

Customers could claim for between $5 to $15 – that's $6.80 to $20.35 today – if they submitted forms for the price of cereal they purchased. Meanwhile the remaining $2.5 million would be given to charities in the form of donated Kellogg's products. The company also removed immunity claims from its packaging in 2010.

New Balance launched its $100 TrueBalance running shoes in 2010. Advertisements claimed that the shoes "activated" certain lower body muscles, allowing people to burn 8% more calories compared to wearing regular running shoes. However, three women – Kimberly Carey, Victoria Molinarolo, and Shannon Dilbeck – felt the claims didn’t stack up and filed a lawsuit against the footwear giant. Their complaint, filed in Massachusetts in 2011, stated that New Balance’s advertising was deceptive.

Lawyers for the women said: "Wearing the Toning Shoes provides no additional activation to the gluteus, hamstring or calf muscles, and does not burn any additional calories.” In August 2012 a judge ruled that New Balance would have to pay out $2.3 million ($3m in today's money) to settle the false advertising claims, with each of the three women receiving $5,000 ($6.6k in today's money).

On top of that, anyone who had joined the class action was entitled to a $100 refund for each pair of New Balance shoes they had purchased,.

When Benjamin Careathers saw a Red Bull advert promising that the energy drink would give him "wings," he decided to put the claim to the test. After consuming the fizzy drink for 10 years and remaining firmly wingless, the New York resident took Red Bull to court for false advertising. Careathers claimed that the manufacturers had deliberately misled purchasers, who bought the drink in the hope that it would give them a competitive edge.

The case never made it to court, as Red Bull was concerned about the bad publicity it might bring. Instead, it settled for $6.5 million with Careathers and set aside a further $6.5 million to cover the cost of any additional refund claims, with each payment worth around $8.4 million in 2023 money.

Any customers who had bought Red Bull between 1 January 2002 and 3 October 2014 could apply for a refund if they also felt they'd been misled by the company's marketing. The total compensation was supposed to work about to about $10 per person that had drunk Red Bull since 2002.

It's a scandal that’s been dubbed “Dieselgate.” In September 2015, America's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that many Volkswagen cars sold in the US contained software that allowed them to “cheat” emissions tests. Unsurprisingly, the lawsuits came in thick and fast.

In 2016, Volkswagen agreed to a $14.7 billion ($18.7bn in today's money) settlement in the US when it was discovered that the company had been intentionally cheating its emissions tests, of which up to $10 billion ($12.7bn today) would be directly paid back to car owners through buybacks, repairs, and additional compensation. 

But it didn't end there. In May 2020 Volkswagen lost a landmark lawsuit in Germany, with the country's civil court ruling that the automaker must pay compensation to a motorist who bought a minivan that had been fitted with the software. The following month, a US appeals court ruled that individual counties could sue Volkswagen. So far, counties in Florida, Utah, Ohio, and Texas have launched their own lawsuits, with payouts potentially reaching $11.2 billion a year, according to Autoblog. 

Volkswagen also lost its appeal over a UK group action lawsuit, and in May 2022 it was ordered to pay $252 million to more than 90,000 British drivers. In total, the company has paid out over tens of billions of dollars across multiple court cases, including settlements with more than 200,000 claimants in Germany alone.

In 2015, Spotify was hit by two lawsuits from disgruntled artists. One came from David Lowery (pictured, right), frontman of the bands Camper Van Beethoven and Cracker, while the other came from Melissa Ferrick, an American singer-songwriter. Both artists, whose suits were initially separate but later combined, claimed that the streaming service had not properly fulfilled payment per compulsory licences of their tracks. The combined class action lawsuits ended up representing a collective of musicians. 

In a statement, Spotify's global head of communications Jonathan Prince said: "Unfortunately, especially in the United States, the data necessary to confirm the appropriate rightsholders is often missing, wrong, or incomplete.”

In 2018, Spotify and the musicians came to a proposed settlement of more than $112.55 million, of which $43.4 million was paid out to artists immediately. In 2023, that's the equivalent of over $136.7 million in total, with $52.7 million going to artists. The streaming giant also committed to paying ongoing royalties.

Since 2000 more than 470,000 deaths in America have been attributed to both legal and illegal opioids, and many more people have been impacted through addiction. There have been around 135,000 personal injury claims against OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma LP over opioid addiction or overdose deaths, and in 2021 it was revealed that Purdue Pharma's Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing included a $10 billion plan to help solve America's opioid crisis. Initially, this included $4 billion given by the Sackler family, which owns the pharmaceutical giant.

As part of this, Purdue Pharma was due to pay personal injury claimants up to $48,000 from a dedicated $700-$750 million fund. Each payout would depend on the level of an individual’s injury or addiction, with the least severe cases receiving an estimated $3,500. But later developments meant the company's potential settlements increased.

In March 2022, the company reached another settlement that saw the Sackler family increase its payout from $4 billion to up to $6 billion. The family must also apologise for its role in the crisis and agree to relinquish control of Purdue Pharma, which is set to rebrand as Knoa Pharma.

This May, an additional order from the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals endorsed the $6 billion settlement. The court also ruled that profits from Knoa Pharma will be sent to a fund that aims to treat opioid addiction.

Purdue Pharma isn't the only American pharmaceuticals company that's been held accountable in court. Also in March 2022, it was announced that New Jersey-based Johnson & Johnson will pay $5 billion over the next nine years to settle more than 3,000 lawsuits over its involvement in the opioid crisis. Three of the pharma giant's distributors, Cardinal Health, AmerisourceBergen and McKesson, will pay an additional $21 billion over the next 18 years. 

The money will be paid out to 46 states and Washington DC, according to McKesson. Only Alabama, Oklahoma, and Washington didn't join the lawsuits. The agreement follows a $665 million settlement that the four companies reached with Native American tribes, more than 400 of which sued them over their role in the opioid crisis earlier this year. In both cases, the pharmaceuticals companies have maintained that they've done nothing wrong and always followed federal laws. 

Tech giant Google is no stranger to controversy, but a recent ruling means the company is liable to lose millions. A class action lawsuit filed a decade ago claimed the company was guilty of "storing and intentionally, systematically and repeatedly divulging” users' search histories to third-party entities. Plaintiffs argued this was a violation of privacy law, as well as a breach of Google's own privacy pledge.

Google, which is owned by the parent company Alphabet, has maintained it's done nothing wrong. But it has agreed to comply with a preliminary court order to pay a settlement fee of $23 million, part of a ruling that will also require it to add privacy disclosures to its homepage.

Anyone who clicked on a Google Search result between 26 October 2006 and 30 September 2013 could be entitled to compensation, with the average payment expected to be around $7.70. Users have until 31 July this year to request repayment, with the final approval hearing for the settlement currently scheduled for October.

Now take a look at the big US companies who are bankrupt right now