Intuit Sued for Allegedly Hiding TurboTax's Free Filing
Intuit is accused of directing taxpayers who were eligible for TurboTax's free filing to its paid services instead.
May 13, 2019 at 08:51 PM
2 minute read
Intuit Inc. allegedly made the free version of its TurboTax software more difficult to access in an effort to divert customers to its paid system, according to a new lawsuit.
The complaint filed Sunday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California claims Intuit breached its contract with the Internal Revenue Service and took advantage of the public when it directed taxpayers who were eligible for TurboTax's free filing to its paid services instead.
Norman Siegel, partner at Stueve Siegel Hanson in Kansas City, Missouri, who represents the prospective class, said the breach of contract impacts low-income Americans. In 2018, taxpayers earning an adjusted gross income of $66,000 or less could file taxes for free with a dozen providers participating in the Free File Alliance, including Intuit.
The three TurboTax customers, hoping to represent a larger class of Americans, also assert that the company intentionally buried its free filing by creating a separate web page from its main website and altering its code to make it hard for search engines such as Google to dig up. Intuit also marketed paid offerings as “Free Guaranteed,” allegedly misleading users who found out about the costs after filling out their information.
“We hope that Intuit will be held accountable for its egregious conduct in this case,” Siegel wrote in an email.
A representative from Intuit declined to comment.
Sunday's lawsuit is part of a wave of litigation filed against TurboTax and H&R Block after a ProPublica investigation revealed the companies allegedly guided qualified users away from free services. This isn't the first lawsuit spurred by the journalism organizations' reporting. In March, Facebook settled with civil rights and labor groups and agreed to change its ad platform after a 2016 ProPublica report showed it was possible to target advertising to users based on race.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPre-Internet High Court Ruling Hobbling Efforts to Keep Tech Giants from Using Below-Cost Pricing to Bury Rivals
6 minute readAs AI-Generated Fraud Rises, Financial Companies Face a Long Cybersecurity Battle
'A Never-Ending Nightmare': Apple Sued for Alleged Failure to Protect Child Sexual Abuse Survivors
Trending Stories
- 1How I Made Law Firm Leadership: 'It’s Imperative That You Never Stop Learning,' Says Ian Ribald of Ballard Spahr
- 2People in the News—Dec. 30, 2024—Pond Lehocky, Buchanan Ingersoll
- 3Orange Belongs to All: U-Haul Suit Argues Rival Public Storage Cannot Claim the Color
- 4Continuing Consolidation: The Biggest Legal Tech M&As of 2024
- 5FTC Announces HSR Final Rulemaking Impacting Premerger Filings
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250