March, 2013 | Class Action News Blog

Week Adjourned: 3.29.13 – Ford, RadioShack, Toyota & Ford (again!)

Check out the latest class action lawsuit news for the week ending March 29, 2013. Top class action news includes Ford, Toyota and RadioShack.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Will Ford Follow in Toyota’s Footsteps? This week, consumers from 14 states filed a federal class action against Ford Motor Co. in connection with alleged defects in Ford’s vehicles causing and failing to prevent the unintended acceleration of those vehicles. Umm, remember that one? Toyota comes to mind…and they settled recently (more on that later).

Here’s the dirt: the plaintiffs contend that Ford vehicles equipped with an electronic throttle control system are vulnerable to sudden unintended acceleration events, and that Ford has admitted that some of its vehicles are in fact prone to such acceleration. Their complaint alleges that the Ford vehicles share a common design defect in lacking adequate fail-safe features, including a reliable brake-over-accelerator (BOA) system (also referred to as a “brake override system”). Such a system is designed to allow a driver to overcome unintended throttle opening by returning the throttle to idle when certain conditions are met, allowing a driver to mitigate unintended acceleration by depressing the brake.

The Ford lawsuit also claims that Ford owners have experienced unacceptable rates of sudden unintended acceleration (SUA), citing a report issued in October 2011 by the U.S. Department of Transportation Inspector General. Plaintiffs allege that Ford should have prevented the SUA incidents by including the brake-over-accelerator system or other fail-safe systems in its vehicles. They maintain that, while Ford began installing a BOA system on some of its North American cars beginning in 2010, the company has failed to remedy, or even warn drivers about the lack of a brake-over-accelerator system on its earlier vehicles.

The cars named in the complaint are:

Ford vehicles: 2005-2007 500; 2005-2009 Crown Victoria; 2005-2010 Econoline; 2007 2010 Edge; 2009-2010 Escape; 2005-2010 Escape HEV; 2005-2010 Expedition; 2004-2010 Explorer; 2007-2010 Explorer Sport Trac; 2004-2010 F-Series; 2009-2010 Flex; 2008-2010 Focus; 2005-2007 Freestyle; 2006-2010 Fusion; 2005-2010 Mustang; 2008-2010 Taurus; 2008-2009 Taurus X; 2002-2005 Thunderbird; and 2010 Transit Connect.

Lincoln vehicles: 2003-2006 LS; 2006-2008 Mark LT; 2009-2010 MKS; 2010 MKT; 2007-2010 MKX; 2006-2010 MKZ; 2005-2009 Town Car; and 2006-2010 Zephyr.

Mercury vehicles: 2002-2005 Cougar (XR7); 2005-2009 Grand Marquis; 2009-2010 Mariner; 2005-2010 Mariner HEV; 2006-2010 Milan; 2005-2007 Montego; 2004-2010 Mountaineer; and 2008-2010 Sable.

The potential class action was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia in Huntington. The plaintiffs, both individually and on behalf of all other class members, seek compensatory damages for the lost value of their cars, the difference between what they originally paid for their cars versus the actual value of their defective vehicles. Plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief, requesting that Ford fix the problem.

Shack Sacked for Tracking? RadioShack got hit with a potential class action this week…The lawsuit claims the electronics retailer secretly tracks the Internet browsing activities of website visitors and shares this private information with third parties. Well, if so, they’re certainly not the first to do that, and I’m betting they won’t be the last…

Short version, the Radio Shack class action was filed in Missouri, by plaintiff Stephanie Hanson who alleges she visited the RadioShack website numerous times during the past five years but was unaware that the company, together with its website operator, GSI Commerce Solutions Inc., had accessed Adobe Flash Player on her computer. Adobe Flash Player is software that enables the playing of sound and video on websites. By accessing this software, the defendants were able to plant tracking devices known as Location Shared Objects (LSOs) on her computer, the lawsuit claims.

The lawsuit, entitled, Hanson v. RadioShack Corp. et al., Case No. 13-cv-00536, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, seeks to represent a proposed class comprised of all Missouri residents who, within the past five years, had their computers illegally tampered with by RadioShack and GSI. Additionally, the lawsuit is seeking damages for alleged invasion of privacy by unreasonable intrusion, computer tampering, trespassing and more.

Top Settlements

It was a very busy week for settlements, and car manufacturers Ford and Toyota led the pack.

First up—Toyota. The Toyota sudden and unwanted acceleration lawsuit claims that certain Toyota, Scion and Lexus vehicles equipped with electronic throttle control systems (ETCS) are defective and can experience unintended acceleration. Yes, that old chestnut…

As a result, the Toyota lawsuit pursues claims for breach of warranties, unjust enrichment, and violations of various state consumer protection statutes. Toyota denies that it has violated any law, denies that it engaged in any and all wrongdoing, and denies that its ETCS is defective. The parties agreed to resolve these matters before these issues were decided by the Court.

Heads up—this settlement does not involve claims of personal injury or property damage.

If you are class member, you may be entitled to one or more of the following:

A cash payment for alleged loss upon certain disposition of a Subject Vehicle during the period from September 1, 2009 and December 31, 2010 or upon early lease termination following an alleged unintended acceleration event that you reported.

Installation of a brake override system (BOS) in certain Subject Vehicles at no charge; A cash payment if your Subject Vehicle is not a hybrid and is not eligible for a BOS; Participation in a Customer Support Program; and other settlement benefits.

For more information including class member options and filing dates visit: toyotaelsettlement.com

Then there’s Ford. They reached a proposed settlement in the pending Ford defective engine class action lawsuit. The background: On April 13, 2011, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created MDL No. 2223, In re: Navistar 6.0L Diesel Engine Products Liability Litigation, and transferred seven lawsuits involving similar claims to the Court for pretrial proceedings. Thirty-two additional lawsuits have since been transferred to the Court. The plaintiffs contend that the 6.0-liter diesel engine installed primarily in 2003 – 2007 heavy-duty Ford trucks and vans contain defects that result in poor performance and expensive repair bills. Plaintiffs assert a variety of legal claims against Ford based on the engine’s design, the marketing of the vehicles, and Ford’s repair practices. Plaintiffs seek to pursue their lawsuits (the “Litigation”) as a class action on behalf of other owners and lessees of model year 2003_2007 non-ambulance Ford vehicles equipped with a 6.0 liter diesel engine (the “Class”).

If you:

1. purchased or leased a model year 2003_2007 non-ambulance Ford vehicle in the United States equipped with a 6.0-liter PowerStroke diesel engine; and

2. the vehicle received one or more repairs covered by Ford_s New Vehicle Limited Warranty during its first five years in service or 100,000 miles, whichever came first, to a fuel injector; the EGR valve; the EGR cooler; the oil cooler; or the turbocharger; and

3. you had not, as of November 1, 2012, filed (and not voluntarily dismissed without prejudice) an individual lawsuit based on that engine;

You may be a member of a proposed Settlement Class and entitled to reimbursement for certain engine-related repair costs and deductibles.

If the Court approves the proposed Settlement, Ford will provide Class Members a means of obtaining reimbursement for certain engine-related repair costs and deductibles. All persons (or entities) who agree to accept these benefits will be barred from pursuing individual lawsuits against Ford and others based on the 6.0-liter engines in these vehicles.

For complete information on the pending settlement, your legal rights, and obtaining and filing forms, visit: http://www.dieselsettlement.com/Casedocuments.html

Ok—that’s a wrap. See you at that bar…and Happy Easter, Happy Passover, Happy belated Holi, etc…

Week Adjourned: 3.22.13 – John Hancock, Dialysis Centers, Ab Circle Pro

The weekly wrap on top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending March 22, 2013. Top class actions include John Hancock Insurance, DaVita Dialysis Centers and Ab Circle Pro.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Do You Trust John Hancock Insurance?…The John Hancock ad campaigns center on “trust”, but after a bad faith insurance class action lawsuit was filed against John Hancock Life Insurance Company over allegations it fails to settle death benefits, that trust may be out the window for some.

This latest class action lawsuit, filed by Richard Feingold and entitled Richard Feingold v. John Hancock Life Insurance Company, Case No. 13-cv-10185, U.S. District Court Massachusetts, Boston, claims that John Hancock only paid him as a beneficiary of his late mother’s life insurance policy, four years after her death in 2006, when Feingold discovered she had the policy. Feingold alleges he found information on the Illinois treasurer’s website which showed he had unclaimed property owed to him from John Hancock through his late mother’s policy. Up until that point, Feingold was unaware, he claims, that his mother had a life insurance policy, or that he was owed death benefits. He subsequently contacted the insurer and was paid, however John Hancock refused to provide him with a copy of his late mother’s policy, or any explanation about the benefits he received.

The potential class action claims that John Hancock routinely checks the Social Security Administration’s master death list so it can halt payments to annuity holders who have become deceased; however the insurer fails to check the same database to see if a life insurance policy holder has died so the company can promptly pay beneficiaries. Essentially, the John Hancock class action lawsuit claims, the insurer uses the information solely for its own benefit.

FYI—John Hancock recently ponied up $13 million to settle allegations brought by six states that it didn’t work hard enough to pay life insurance benefits. Slow learners maybe? Um. Maybe not.

More on Granuflo Lawsuits. This has been all over the news recently. DaVita Healthcare, a national dialysis treatment provider that uses Granuflo and Naturalyte during hemodialysis, is facing four potential personal injury class action lawsuits.

The DaVita dialysis class actions allege the clinics should have known of the risks for serious adverse health effects associated with Granuflo and Naturalyte and acted accordingly to reduce those risks to patients. Those serious health issues include cardiac arrest and sudden death.

Granuflo and Naturalyte are dialysis products made by Fresenius Medical Care. In March 2012, prompted by reports of adverse events, the Food and Drug Administration issued a Class I recall of both Naturalyte and Granuflo.

The four class action lawsuits have been filed by plaintiffs Donald Thornton, Melvin Nunes, Donald Young and Armando Moreno, all in the US District Court for the District of Colorado. The lawsuits seek to represent any person treated at a DaVita Healthcare clinic with Granuflo or Naturalyte products.

Top Settlements

3-Minute Abs? Really? How are your abs, by the way? Feeling a tad underutilized, ignored even? Are they retaliating by morphing into some indistinguishable, gelatinous shape that is slowly obliterating any view you had of your feet? Yeah, you know what I’m talking about…

So do the folks at Ab Circle Pro. Problem is, their fix ain’t on the level. So the makers of Ab Circle Pro have agreed to pay as much as $25 million to settle charges of consumer fraud brought by The Federal Trade Commission (FTC). You may be familiar with the consumer fraud claims, but if not, according to the FTC, Ab Circle Pro claimed, among other things, that their device could cause rapid and substantial weight loss and that three minutes of exercise on the Ab Circle Pro was equal to 100 sit-ups. (Oh yeah baby—sign me up!)

The official short version…According to the FTC, in advertisements, the defendants promised that a three-minute workout on the Ab Circle Pro—which is a fiberglass disk with stationary handlebars and two knee rests that roll on the edge of the disk, allowing consumers to kneel and rotate side-to-side—was equivalent to doing 100 sit ups. In the infomercial, pitchwoman Jennifer Nicole Lee compared the Ab Circle Pro to a gym workout, saying, “You can either do 30 minutes of abs and cardio or just three minutes a day. The choice is yours.” The infomercial claimed that consumers using the Ab Circle Pro for three minutes a day would “melt inches and pounds,” and featured Ab Circle Pro users claiming they had lost as much as sixty pounds. Consumers buying through the infomercial typically paid $200 to $250 for the device, while the price for those buying from retailers varied more widely. I think $250 could buy a lot of situps…

And, the FTC charged all the defendants except Lee and her companies with making false and/or unsupported claims, including that using the Ab Circle Pro caused rapid or substantial weight and fat loss; resulted in loss of weight, fat, or inches in specific parts of the body, such as the abdomen, hips, buttocks, and thighs; provided fat loss and weight loss equivalent to, or better than, a much longer gym workout; and provided the same rapid and substantial weight loss that people who provided testimonials for the infomercial said they experienced. The complaint also charges the Fitness Brands, Inc. defendants with providing the means to Direct Holdings Americas, Inc. and Direct Entertainment Media Group, Inc. to deceive consumers.

The defendants are Fitness Brands, Inc., Fitness Brands International, Inc., and the two individuals who control them, Michael Casey and David Brodess; Direct Holdings Americas, Inc. and Direct Entertainment Media Group, Inc.; infomercial producer Tara Borakos and two companies she controls, Tara Productions Inc. and New U, Inc.; and Jennifer Nicole Lee and two companies she controls, JNL, Inc. and JNL Worldwide, Inc.

So, in the interests of honesty and fair play, the defendants have agreed to pay money to provide refunds to eligible consumers who bought the Ab Circle Pro. The amount of the refund will depend on the number of claims submitted and approved. To find out about making a claim visit: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/cases/abcirclepro/9—which doesn’t necessarily have to involve getting off the couch…

Ok—that’s a wrap. See you at the bar—and make mine a diet soda this time. Happy weekend!

Week Adjourned: 3.15.13 – Timeshares, Asbestos, AT&T

The weekly wrap on top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending March 15, 2013. Top class action stories include timeshares, AT&T and another large asbestos settlement.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Owners call “Time Out” on Timeshare! Owners are calling out Celebration World Resort’s Timeshare deceptive practices. Yep—a deceptive practices class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of timeshare owners at Festiva’s Orlando Resort, formerly known as Celebration World Resort, alleging that the resort’s developers and managers have engaged in unfair and deceptive practices in the sale of timeshare upgrades and reservation point allocation.

The resort timeshare class action lawsuit, Reeves, et al. v. Zealandia Holding Company Inc., et al., cause no. 13-CA-866-MF, was filed March 1 in the 9th Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, in Osceola County.

Here’s the skinny: According to the class action lawsuit, beginning in 2004, approximately 900 parties purchased timeshare interests in Celebration World Resort Owners Association, located in Kissimmee, FL, from B.L. Vacation Ownership Inc. Between 2008 and 2011, representatives of B.L. Vacation Ownership sold upgrades to existing timeshare owners that would increase the number of points they had to apply to timeshare reservations.

After the homeowners purchased the upgrades, B.L. Vacations sold the resort to Festiva Hospitality Group, now known as Zealandia Holding Co., and the resort’s name was changed to Festiva’s Orlando Resort. After the sale, the lawsuit alleges, the reservation point system was changed and the upgrades that had been purchased by the timeshare owners were not honored. Nice.

The lawsuit names the Orlando Homeowners Association, B.L. Vacation Ownership Inc., Zealandia Holding Co. and its subsidiary and affiliate companies, and RCI LLC as defendants. The suit alleges that one or more of the defendants:

Violated the resort’s declaration of covenants by improperly reallocating reservation points

Violated the resort’s declaration of covenants for failing to give proper notice of the reallocation

Breached the fiduciary duty owed to the timeshare owners

Violated Section 721.18(5) of Florida’s timeshare law

So—be interesting to see how this is resolved…

Top Settlements

Another Big Asbestos Settlement this week. A construction worker who, is not named, and who developed a highly aggressive cancer after his exposure to asbestos, has resolved his lawsuit against the defendant companies for $7.5 million prior to trial. The plaintiff brought suit against several of the companies that manufactured the materials. The defendants severally denied liability.

Heads up all you construction workers out there: In the 1970s and 1980s, the plaintiff was a construction worker helping install underground water and sewer lines beneath the Sacramento Valley city of Chico. His job involved working with pipes made from a concrete-asbestos compound, which he would cut with a gasoline-powered saw. The cutting generated an enormous amount of cement-asbestos dust, which left the plaintiff covered head to toe by the end of the day. The plaintiff was later diagnosed with pleural mesothelioma, an aggressive form of cancer, also rare except where attributable to asbestos exposure.

The plaintiff filed suit in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, seeking damages on a defective product liability action. The plaintiff sought recovery of medical expenses, lost wages, and non-economic recovery. The defendants named were several companies who manufactured, sold or delivered the asbestos-containing pipes the plaintiff worked with, including Parex USA, Westburne Supply, John K. Bice Co., Los Angeles Rubber, Hajoca Corp., Hanson Permanente Cement, Keenan, Properties, J-M Manufacturing, Certainteed Corp., Ferguson Enterprises, Grinnell Corp., Amcord, Ameron International and Calportland.

One Ringy Dingy—for anyone out there who received pre-recorded messages from AT&T: There is a proposed Settlement in a class action pending in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington. The class action lawsuit concerns the alleged failure by AT&T Corp. to comply with the law in its delivery of a pre-recorded telephone message between July 30, 2008, and May 29, 2012.

If you received the pre-recorded message during that time you may be eligible to receive a payment from the AT&T class action Settlement.

This lawsuit alleges that AT&T Corp. did not comply with the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) and the Washington Automatic Dialing and Announcing Devices Act (“WADAD”) in its program to deliver the following pre-recorded message (the “Calling Program”) between July 30, 2008, and May 29, 2012:

“Hi this is AT&T calling with an important message regarding your recent long distance calling. This call is to alert you that someone in your household recently made one or more international calls which will appear on your next AT&T bill at a non-discounted rate. Thank you for using AT&T. Our number is 800-235-9920.”

No judgment has been made, and AT&T Corp. has not agreed with the allegations or admitted any wrongdoing, but the parties have agreed to resolve the lawsuit with a Settlement that would provide payment to Class Members.

Class Members in the Settlement are:

All persons within the United States who between July 30, 2008, and May 29, 2012 received a telephone call pursuant to the Calling Program who had not selected AT&T Corp. as their presubscribed long distance carrier at the time of the call, plus all California residents who received a call under the Calling Program and were on AT&T’s internal do-not-call list at the time they received the call.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and received a pre-recorded message as identified above, you may be eligible to receive (a) a cash sum of $135 if you were NOT a resident of the State of Washington at the time you received the pre-recorded message, or (b) a cash sum of $270 if you were a resident of the State of Washington at the time you received the pre-recorded message.

The Court will determine whether to approve the Settlement at a Fairness Hearing scheduled to take place on March 8, 2013.

Ok—that’s a wrap. See you at the bar. Happy weekend everyone!

Week Adjourned: 3.8.13 – ADT, Hertz, Asbestos

ADT hit with early termination fee class action lawsuit to top our weekly wrap of class action lawsuits and settlements. Other big stories involve Hertz and alleged overcharging on sales tax and a major asbestos settlement.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

ADT Billing Practices Setting Off Alarms…Oh yes, my friends. This week an unfair business practices class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against ADT, LLC d/b/a ADT Security Services (“ADT”) on behalf of all consumers who purchased ADT home monitoring services. That’s a lot of folks, I’m betting.

The proposed class consists of two groups of consumers: (1) all current or former consumer subscribers of ADT who have been charged an early termination fee or are subject to being charged an early termination fee (also called an Early Termination Fee or Early Cancellation Fee, collectively “ETF”, and comprising the “ETF class”); and (2) all current or former consumer subscribers of ADT whose rates were increased or are subject to increase by ADT without prior notice while in the initial contract period or during subsequent contractual extensions.

This ADT class action is intended to redress ADT’s wrongful practice of imposing early termination fees, the lynchpin of ADT’s “never let them go” strategy. Early termination fees are unlawful penalties used simply as an anti-competitive device and do not compensate ADT for any true costs of breach. These penalties, which are unilaterally imposed by ADT “even when ADT fails to perform the services promised” also violate the consumer protection statutes of California and Illinois and similar laws nationwide.

The early termination penalty is extracted under circumstances which cannot be justified, when ADT has failed to perform the very services that form the basis of ADT’s obligation. The penalty is also extracted from customers who contracted with ADT to simply monitor a system that was previously installed, requiring no equipment to be installed and resulting in a windfall to ADT upon termination. By charging the early termination fee ADT gets paid for years of monitoring without doing any monitoring to earn those fees.

In addition, Plaintiffs seek redress for ADT’s pattern of unilaterally increasing alarm monitoring fees while consumers are under contract for lesser fees. These increases are implemented without adequate prior notice and without providing the appropriate and required disclosures necessary to ensure that customers consent to these increases in advance. ADT relies on small boilerplate text neither signed nor highlighted for customers to claim its “right” to unilaterally increase fees.

In addition, California residents who received restitution as a result of a settlement of similar charges against ADT made by the Contra Costa District Attorney’s Office, may still be entitled to recovery under this lawsuit.

Taxing Situation at the Car Rental…And while we’re on the subject—which happens to be the most popular category on LawyersandSettlements.com—consumer fraud—a class action lawsuit was filed against Hertz Rent-A-Car this week by customers who allege the car rental company overcharges on sales tax. Really?

Specifically, the Hertz class action lawsuit, entitled Frederick Cohen et al v. The Hertz Corporation, et al., Case No. 13-cv-01205, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, claims Hertz is in violation of New York state law, as well as other states, by charging sales tax on a pre-discount rental cost, that is charging tax before customer coupons and discounts are applied. Filed by Senior Partner Alan S. Ripka, of the national law firm of Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik, the lawsuit contends that, if true, this allegedly unlawful practice may have cost Hertz’s customers millions of dollars.

“New York and other states have passed legislation and regulations disallowing this predatory behavior and to protect the public from this unscrupulous business practice that attempts to overcharge customers under the veil of the tax code,” the plaintiff’s lawyers said in a statement about the proposed class action lawsuit. The consumer fraud class action lawsuit names The Hertz Corporation, Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. and Hertz Investors Inc, as defendants.

The lawsuit seeks Hertz’s compliance with these laws and regulations and the return of all improperly charged costs and fees to Class Members.

Top Class Action Settlements

$35 Million Asbestos Verdict. On March 1st, a $35 million verdict was returned in an asbestos personal injury lawsuit brought by Ivo John Peraica, an asbestos removal worker who died in December from cancer caused by asbestos. The New York Supreme Court jury that heard Peraica’s case returned its verdict Friday, awarding the multi-million dollar settlement to the Croatian-born worker.

Peraica, of Queens, worked for eight years for New York-area contractors removing asbestos insulation from boilers, pumps, and other equipment. He died from complications related to mesothelioma, a cancer whose only known cause is exposure to toxic asbestos fibers.

The asbestos lawsuit claimed that Peraica’s disease was caused by years of inhaling the asbestos dust stirred up each time he stripped asbestos insulation from the equipment at his jobsites—equipment which, according to testimony, was devoid of any warnings about the dangers of asbestos.

The sole defendant at the time of the verdict—industrial products manufacturer Crane Co.—argued that other companies and even Peraica himself were responsible for his exposure to asbestos, but the jury ultimately heaped blame on the Stamford, CT-based company, saying it had acted with reckless disregard for consumers’ safety.

Peraica, a Local 12 Heat and Frost Insulators union member, worked removing asbestos for almost a decade: from the week he moved his family to New York from Croatia in 1978 until he stopped doing asbestos removal work in 1986. Peraica’s widow, Milica, survives him, as do three daughters, one of whom testified at trial to her father’s pain and suffering.

Peraica was unable to testify in person, but before he died on December 28, provided four days’ worth of deposition testimony that was read into evidence.

Ok—that’s a wrap. See you at the bar.

Week Adjourned: 3.1.13 – Walmart, Budweiser, Apple

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. This week’s highlights include Wal-Mart, Budweiser and Apple.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

If at first you don’t succeed, try, try, try again…Good advice, we hope, for the women who have just filed a regional gender discrimination class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart.

Now, to be clear, Wal-Mart is not unfamiliar with the allegations, as a national gender discrimination and employment class action was filed against the world’s largest retailer only to be dismissed in 2011 by the US Supreme Court. Had that class action gone through, the class of plaintiffs would likely have been in the hundreds of thousands. But it didn’t. So—now, acting on the advice from the Supreme Court, women are filing discrimination class actions by state. The one filed this week is the fifth such regional lawsuit.

Filed in Wisconsin by one current and four former employees, the class action, entitled Ladik et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Case No. 13-cv-00123, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, alleges that female employees are discriminated against when it comes to receiving compensation and promotions. The Wisconsin gender discrimination class action lawsuit is seeking to represent female workers employed by Wal-Mart since December 1998.

I’ll show my gender bias and wish them every success!

Hey Bud—this one’s for you! Oh heck yes. This week saw Anheuser Busch, the brewer of the self-proclaimed King of Beers—Budweiser —get hit with several consumer fraud class action lawsuits alleging that it waters down its Budweiser, Michelob and other top-selling beers. Tsk,Tsk. Do not go messing with people’s alcohol content gentlemen.

Filed in Pennsylvania, California and other states, the Budweiser lawsuits allege that consumers have been sold beer that contains less alcohol than advertised on the labels.

Specifically, the complaints allege that Anheuser Busch employs some of the most sophisticated process control technology in the world to precisely monitor the alcohol content at the final stages of production, and then adds additional water to produce beers with significantly lower alcohol content than is represented on the product labels, and depriving consumers of the value they paid for.

The lawsuits are based on information provided by former employees at the company’s 13 US breweries, some in high-level plant positions, according to lead lawyer Josh Boxer (MSN.com). “Our information comes from former employees at Anheuser-Busch, who have informed us that as a matter of corporate practice, all of their products mentioned (in the lawsuit) are watered down,” Boxer told MSN.com “It’s a simple cost-saving measure, and it’s very significant.”

The complaint alleges: “There are no impediments—economic, practical or legal—to AB accurately labeling its products to reflect their true alcohol content. Nevertheless, AB uniformly misrepresents and overstates that content.”

Nina Giampaoli who filed the California-based lawsuit, said “I think it’s wrong for huge corporations to lie to their loyal customers—I really feel cheated. No matter what the product is, people should be able to rely on the information companies put on their labels.”

I’ll drink to that!

Top Settlements

Nothin’ like a kid in an Apple—er, candy—store. This one is for all you parents out there who woke up on morning to find your credit card balance had magically grown—seemingly on its own. But wait—is that the patter of little feet I hear? Could it be the kids buying in-game extras from the Apple mobile apps store that’s the root of the mystery? You betcha!

And this week, Apple magnanimously agreed to pony up some gift cards, no total value given, by the way, in settlement of the consumer fraud class action it’s facing over what could only be described as unfair business practices.

If the Apple apps settlement is approved, parents would receive $5 iTunes gift cards. Wow—pack up the kids, you’re going on vacation!

Ok—here’s the skinny. The lawsuit is brought by parents who allege their children downloaded free games from the Apple mobile app store and then went on to buy in-game extras—effectively charging the cost of the games to their parents—without their parents’ knowledge. In some cases these charges ran into the hundreds of dollars. Yup.

If approved, Apple would build a website for people who wish to make a claim. As well the tech-giant would send e-mail notifications to some 23 million customers. OK, that ain’t chump change.

According to a report by CNN.com parents whose children incurred larger costs and who want more than $5 gift card, must provide proof that a larger amount was spent by their children during any 45-day period. Those who can show more than $30 in purchases may choose a cash refund instead of an Apple credit. Purchases made until the date of the settlement would be eligible for refunds, CNN.com reported.

Bad Apple! What kind of example does that set?

Ok—See you at the bar and Happy Friday!