June, 2013 | Class Action News Blog

Week Adjourned: 6.28.13 – Apple, Mesh Implants, Jackson National

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements in our weekly wrap, Week Adjourned. Top stories include Apple, Mesh Implants and Jackson National

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Hey Apple, iAin’t got HD. Apple is facing yet another consumer fraud class action lawsuit. This week’s lawsuit contends that the tech giant charges its iTunes customers extra for accessing high definition (HD) media products for older Apple devices, despite the fact that those devices lack HD capability.

Hmm.

In the Apple iTunes class action lawsuit, lead plaintiff Scott J. Weiselberg claims that the default download option provided on Apple’s iTunes is HD, which is more expensive than non-HD options for movie and TV show rentals, for example.

The backstory—in 2008, Apple began offering movie and video download rentals for its iPhone, iPod and iPad devices. However, early models of these devices were not equipped with HD, and so cannot run HD content, but are restricted to playing standard definition (SD) content instead. Only newer versions of Apple products are HD-capable.

The lawsuit alleges that in June 2010 Weiselberg, who owned a 3G SD iPhone, rented the movie “Big Daddy” from iTunes, paying $4.99 in rental fees. He alleges he was unaware that a cheaper option was available for rental—the SD version of the movie. Had he known, he claims, that would have been the version of the movie he would have rented. Makes sense.

Weiselberg alleges that while Apple eventually added a notice to the iTunes download notifying customers of the availability of SD, by that time Apple had already collected “millions of dollars in undeserved profits.”

The consumer fraud class action claims that Apple’s failure to notify its customers of the SD option is a violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law. He is seeking restitution, an injunction and damages for unjust enrichment. We shall see….

Top Settlements

TVM Settlement, For Some. A victory at last—for some women—but the battles go on. A $54.5 million settlement has been reached, potentially ending several transvaginal mesh lawsuits which allege the implants eroded in the plaintiffs, leaving them incontinent and suffering from chronic pain.

Endo Health Solutions Inc, which acquired American Medical Systems Inc., (AMS), the maker of the vaginal-mesh devices, which include the Perigee, Apogee and Elevate implants, said in a statement that is set to resolve an undisclosed number of the vaginal mesh personal injury lawsuits. However, AMs is facing over 5,000 such lawsuits, which have been consolidated: the first lawsuit set to go to court in December 2013. This settlement agreement doesn’t address these lawsuits.

The AMS settlement will resolve a small number of vaginal mesh injury lawsuits filed in both federal and state courts. Lawyers representing the plaintiffs stress that no universal settlement has been made. The first cases are set to go to court later this year.

In August 2011, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a report stating vaginal-mesh products should be classified as high risk devices, based on a review of side-effect reports from January 2008 to December 2010. Women’s groups are demanding that the devices be recalled. I should think so.

Better late than never! Heads up anyone who purchased or knows an elderly person who purchased Jackson National annuities—A $25 million settlement has been proposed, which, if approved, would settle the proposed consumer fraud and elder financial abuse class action pending against Jackson National Life Insurance Co. The insurer has agreed to pay the settlement which would end the litigation and bring economic relief to over 44,000 elderly customers in California who bought their fixed deferred annuity products. Yes—44,000 customers.

The Jackson National annuities lawsuit alleges that Jackson National targeted its senior citizen customers in the selling of its deferred annuities that had hidden fees, commissions and surrender penalties, essentially defrauding these clients.

According to court documents, the terms of the proposed class action stipulate that Jackson National make cash payments or account credits equal to 22 percent of any past surrender charges the affected policyholders incurred. The insurer will also reduce any future surrender charges by 22 percent. If the Jackson National settlement is approved, these benefits will go into effect automatically; there will be no claims process, and Class Members will not be required to do anything to receive the full settlement benefit.

“The price of delay is particularly high in this litigation because a substantial portion of the class consists of elderly consumers who cannot wait years for relief,” the memorandum said. “Continuation of the litigation would be extremely expensive and risky.” To say the least— perhaps?

The proposed Class includes all California individuals who were age 60 years or older when they purchased misleading deferred annuities from Jackson National insurance, between October 24, 2002, and January 12, 2012.

Okee dokee—that’s it for this week. A safe and happy weekend to all. See you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 6.21.13 – Intern Pay, McDonald’s, Flonase

The top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending June 21, 2013. Top stories include intern pay, McDonald’s paying workers with plastic, and the much-awaited Flonase settlements.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Unpaid Interns Going for Big Payday… or at least their day in court. A former unpaid intern at Atlantic Records claims the record company required him to work full-time over eight months without pay, often 10 hours a day, according to a proposed employment class-action law suit filed in State Supreme Court in Manhattan.

Of note, the Atlantic Records class action is the first unpaid internship lawsuit to be filed against a music industry business, according to lawyers involved in lawsuit; the class action alleges that Atlantic Records and its parent, Warner Music Group Corp, violated New York State Labor law by requiring the intern, Justin Henry, of Brooklyn, to work full time without pay.

Henry was an intern in 2007 for Atlantic engaged in filing, faxing, answering phones and fetching lunch for paid employees, according to the suit. He alleges his internship existed solely for the benefit of Atlantic Records, and that he received no training or mentorship. Sadly, we’ve heard this before.

According to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, unpaid internships must exist for training purposes and employers may derive “no immediate advantage” from the work provided by interns.

So, Henry is seeking to recover unpaid minimum wages ($7.15 per hour) and overtime, as well as attorney’s fees.

Plastic Pay at McDonald’s? No stranger to employment lawsuits, McDonald’s is facing a potential employment class action, with a new twist. The lawsuit was filed by an employee in Pennsylvania who alleges she was issued with a fee-loaded Chase Bank Debit card, instead of a paycheck. Yes, really.

Natalie Gunshannon, a 27-year old single mother, worked at McDonalds in Luzerne County, PA, at an hourly rate of $7.44 from April 24 through May 15. When she received her first paycheck, it was not a check at all but rather a JP Morgan Chase debit card which would cost her $1.50 for ATM withdrawals, $5 for over-the-counter cash withdrawals, $1 per balance inquiry, 75 cents per online bill payment, and $15 for a lost or stolen card. Nice. I wonder who thought this one up.

When Gunshannon asked if she could be paid by check she was allegedly told that the debit card was the only option. Furthermore, her future earnings would be deposited into the debit card account and she could access her money from there. “McDonald’s does not provide a choice for hourly employees to receive their justly earned wages through a bank check, cash or direct deposit,” the lawsuit said. Pennsylvania law states that employees are entitled to have a choice to be paid by check or cash.

Go get’em!

Top Settlements

Flonase Settlements Approved. GSK will have to pony up $185 million in two recently approved settlements involving the marketing—or not—of Flonase nasal spray. They were facing two antitrust class actions both of which allege that GSK deliberately prevented generic versions of Flonase nasal spray from going to market.

The Flonase settlements total $185 million, with $150 million designated for reimbursement to people and entities in the US who purchased Flonase directly from GSK at any time from May 19, 2004 until March 6, 2006. For complete information on this settlement, and to download forms, visit flonasedirectsettlement.com The case is, In re Flonase Antitrust Litigation, No. 08-CV-3149, is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

A second class involving those who indirectly purchased Flonase and generic Flonase—will receive reimbursement from a $35 million settlement fund. These class members include anyone who purchased Flonase or generic Flonase for personal, family or household consumption in the United States and its territories from May 18, 2004 through March 31, 2009. Also included in the class is anyone who made co-payments or other partial out-of-pocket payments through their health plans. For complete information on this settlement visit flonasesettlement.com The case is In re Flonase Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 8-cv-3301 and Medical Mutual of Ohio v. GSK, Case No. 12-cv-4212 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Okee dokee—that’s it for this week. A safe and happy weekend to all. See you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 6.14.13 – Class Action against Obama?

Takes a set of you-know-what to sue the President, but… That’s the lead story in this week’s wrap of top class action lawsuits and settlements, for the week ending June 14, 2013.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

If You’re Gonna Sue, Sue Big. In the unlikely event any of us were napping last week—and missed this—it’s among the first of what’s likely to be an onslaught of wiretap class actions resulting from, well, surveillance activities undertaken by the federal government. First up to bat, these plaintiffs are certainly not shy about naming defendants: The wiretap class action names President Obama, US Attorney General Eric Holder, the director of the National Security Agency (NSA), the NSA, the CEO of Verizon, the US Department of Justice, and Judge Roger Vinson of the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as defendants. Judge Vinson is named as a defendant because he signed the secret order directing Verizon to turn over all phone records “on an ongoing daily basis.”

According to the wiretap class action lawsuit, this constituted an “outrageous breach of privacy” and a violation of Verizon users’ “reasonable expectation of privacy, free speech and association, right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, and due process rights.” The wiretap lawsuit challenges the legality of the NSA’s “secret and illegal government scheme to intercept and analyze vast quantities of domestic telephone communications.”

The potential class action lawsuit, entitled Klayman, et al. v. Barrack Hussein Obama II, et al., Case No. 13-cv-00851, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeks to represent a class of American citizens in the United States and overseas who are either curren or previous Verizon customers, including, but not limited to customers between April 25, 2013 and July 19, 2013.

The class is seeking a cease-and-desist order to prohibit the collection of Verizon customers’ phone records and more than $3 billion in damages and attorney fees. Plaintiffs are represented by Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch Inc.

Here we go!

Top Settlements

USPS Workers Get Special Delivery? Looks like the US Postal Service was not delivering the goods for all its employees: the agency has agreed to a $17.3 million settlement in the discrimination class action brought by its employees with disabilities.

Some 41,000 past and current postal service employees are involved in the discrimination class action, which details complaints over restricted work hours from 2000 through to 2012. These reduced work hours are allegedly due to employees’ permanent disabilities. The lawsuit alleges the practice violated the 1973 Rehabilitation Act, which bars federal agencies from discriminating against disabled employees.

The USPS class action settlement has received preliminary approval from an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) administrative judge and is expected to receive final approval from the EEOC in July. If finalized, class members may be eligible to receive up to $300 per employee—but it depends on how many people file claims.

Although the settlement still needs final approval from the EEOC, members of the class are supposed to get formal notification of the agreement next week.

Second-Hand Asbestos Settlement. Good news bad news…as the asbestos debacle continues. On June 5, 2013, an Oakland jury completed its award to plaintiffs Rose-Marie and Martin Grigg of a total of $27,342,500 in damages stemming from Mrs. Grigg’s asbestos mesothelioma (Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG12629580).

Mrs. Grigg, now 82, was exposed to asbestos in the course of shaking out and washing her husband’s work clothing. Mrs. Grigg’s then husband was an insulator for a company that used Owens-Illinois, Inc. Kaylo brand insulation products from 1950-1958.

Evidence introduced during trial showed that Owens-Illinois, Inc. knew that asbestos exposure could cause death as early as the 1930s and that test results on Kaylo showed that exposure to the asbestos in the product could cause fatal disease.

According to court documents, Owens-Illinois nonetheless advertised Kaylo as “non-toxic” and did not state that the product contained asbestos. Kaylo was packaged in boxes without warning about the health hazards associated with asbestos exposure.

The jury found that Owens-Illinois, Inc. manufactured a defective product, failed to adequately warn Mrs. Grigg, was negligent, and intentionally failed to disclose information about Kaylo-related health hazards to Mrs. Grigg. The jury also found that Owens-Illinois, Inc. acted with malice, oppression or fraud toward Mrs. Grigg. The jury awarded Mrs. Grigg $12,000,000 in damages for her pain and suffering, Mr. Grigg $4,000,000 in damages for his loss of consortium, and $342,500 in economic damages. The jury also levied an $11,000,000 punitive damages verdict against Owens-Illinois, Inc.

Okee dokee—that’s it for this week—happy Father’s Day and safe weekend to you all—see you at the bar!

(Image: northjersey.com)

Week Adjourned: 6.7.13 – Crest Toothpaste, Organic Seed Mix, Lipitor

Organic Seed Mix, Lipitor, and Crest Toothpaste top our Week Adjourned wrap of top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending June 7, 2013

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Going Organic Leads to Going to Hospital? Heads-up anyone who bought Townsend Farms Organic Anti-Oxidant Blend frozen berry and pomegranate seed mix: A woman who alleges she fell ill with a hepatitis A infection and was hospitalized after eating this product has filed a lawsuit against Oregon-based Townsend Farms.

According to the food poisoning lawsuit, plaintiff Karen Echard purchased and consumed Townsend Farms Organic Anti-Oxidant Blend in the Phoenix area in April of 2013. Attorneys allege that she fell ill with symptoms of hepatitis A infection, including fever, chills, nausea, abdominal pains and jaundice during an illness that started on May 21.

The Organic Frozen Berry Seed Mix class action states that Karen sought medical treatment for her illness on more than one occasion and was hospitalized for 5 days. Her attorneys allege that Karen, a healthcare practitioner and student, fears she will lose her job and be forced to discontinue her schoolwork due to her illness, as she continues to experience the effects of her hepatitis A infection. The Townsend Farms lawsuit asks for damages including physical injury, medical and medical-related expenses, wage and lost earning capacity damages.

On June 6, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced that at least 61 people from 7 states had fallen ill with hepatitis A infections in a “Multistate outbreak of Hepatitis A infections potentially associated with ‘Townsend Farms Organic Anti-Oxidant Blend’ frozen berry and pomegranate mix.”

Lipitor Diabetes Link Looking at Lawsuit. Lipitor is making news—this time it all about what the anti-cholesterol drug shouldn’t be doing—allegedly. Pfizer, the maker of Lipitor (atorvastatin) is facing a mounting number of these personal injury lawsuits, alleging the drug causes diabetes. In fact, several of the initial Lipitor diabetes lawsuits have just been green lit for a Multi-district litigation—or MDL.

The Lipitor lawsuits allege that Pfizer has failed to adequately warn consumers of the risk for developing diabetes associated with the statin. In 2012 Pfizer updated the Lipitor labeling to include warnings of increased risk for diabetes, however, the lawsuits contend that this was insufficient.

Lipitor belongs to a class of drugs called statins, which are used to lower cholesterol by reducing blood levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, or “bad” cholesterol, a contributing factor in heart disease. A study (Culver AL, Ockene IS, Balasubramanian R, et al. “Statin Use and Risk of Diabetes Mellitus in Postmenopausal Women in the Women’s Health Initiative.” Archives of Internal Medicine, 2012,172(2): pp.144-152.), completed in 2012, as part of the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) found an association between the statin class of medications and the development of type 2 diabetes in women, particularly post-menopausal women.

Among the most recent Lipitor diabetes lawsuits filed is that of Margaret Clark, filed in the US District of South Carolina, this April. She contends she was prescribed Lipitor in 2002 to address her risk for heart disease. At the time, according to her lawsuit, she was considered a healthy weight. However, in February 2012, Clark was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes.

Clark’s lawsuit alleges Pfizer knew or should have known that there was a connection between Lipitor and diabetes before it was made publically available in 1997. Instead, the warning was only added to the product labeling in February 2012, after the FDA’s Division of Metabolism and Endocrinology Products requested that a warning be provided for consumers and the medical community.

According to the lawsuit, the warning did not actually mention type 2 diabetes, but rather stated “Increases in HbA1c and fasting serum glucose levels have been reported with HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, including LIPITOR.”

The Lipitor lawsuit also states “Until the February 2012 label change, Lipitor’s label never warned patients of any potential relation between changes in blood sugar levels and taking Lipitor.” And, “Despite the February 2012 label change, Lipitor’s label continues to fail to warn consumers of the serious risk of developing type 2 diabetes per se when using Lipitor.”

Top Settlements

Crest Toothpaste, er, Crestfallen? A preliminary settlement has been reached in the consumer fraud class action lawsuit pending against Procter & Gamble Co (P&G). The lawsuit alleges the company falsely advertised the benefits of its Crest Sensitivity Treatment & Protection toothpaste. Specifically, the Crest lawsuit, entitled, Edward Rossi v. The Procter & Gamble Co., Case No. 11-07238 (JLL) (MAH), U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, claims P&G engaged in misleading and deceptive advertising and marketing of its Crest Sensitivity Toothpaste.

The tentative Crest toothpaste settlement, if approved, could include anyone in the US who purchased Crest Sensitivity Treatment & Protection toothpaste between February 2011 and March 2013. If you purchased this toothpaste between those dates, you may be eligible to claim a full or partial refund from the settlement. If approved, potential class members must submit a valid claim form and proof of purchase in order to receive damages. Class members with with proof of purchase will be able to claim a full refund of the purchase price they paid. Those without documentation will receive a refund of $4. Only one tube of Crest Sensitivity toothpaste will be refunded.

Valid claim forms and any supporting documents must be postmarked no later than August 19, 2013. Detailed claims filing instructions are provided below.

A Final Fairness Hearing will be held on September 12, 2013.

For complete details on filing a claim, and to download forms, visit: http://www.sensitivitytoothpastesettlement.com

Okee dokee—that’s it for this week—happy and safe weekend to you all—see you at the bar!