2014 | Class Action News Blog

Week Adjourned: 12.19.14 – Sony, Graco, Comcast

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top class action lawsuits include Sony, Graco and Comcast.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

So who’s NOT talking about Sony’s decisions this week…chief among them, an alleged decision to risk a data breach rather than upgrade their software to prevent hacking. At least that’s what past and present Sony employees are alleging in their proposed data breach class action lawsuit filed this week—the first of 3 such lawsuits.

The complaint, filed against Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc., claims the recent data breach which resulted in employee data theft, could have been prevented. Well, wouldn’t that have changed the course of history…

The data breach has resulted in a situation former employees claim is “better suited to a cinematic thriller than to real life.” Specifically, the class action lawsuit alleges Sony failed to take adequate precautions to prevent the massive data breach and protect the personal information of more than 15,000 employees, both past and present.

“Sony failed to secure its computer systems, servers and databases despite weaknesses it has known about for years” the complaint states. “Their most sensitive data, including over 47,000 Social Security numbers, employment files including salaries, medical information, and anything else that their employer Sony touched, has been leaked to the public, and may even be in the hands of criminals.” The lawsuit cites an email from Sony’s general counsel, among other internal documents obtained in the leak, that expresses concern that the company’s network security and email retention policies left it vulnerable to an attack, such as the one it has now suffered.

The lawsuit also claims that Sony had previously suffered cyberattacks, including a data breach in 2011 where hackers gained access to the company’s PlayStation Network and Qriocity systems, exposing up to 31 million user’s data. Remember those? They were consolidated and settled for $15 million in games, online currency and identity theft reimbursement. However, according to the current lawsuit, the security issues were not resolved. Way to go.

Here’s the stunner: according to the lawsuit, rather than remedying the ongoing security concerns fully, Sony executives “made a business decision to accept the risk of losses associated with being hacked” rather than pay for expensive system upgrades. “If only Sony had heeded its own advice in time,” the complaint says.

Initially, current Sony employees were offered identity theft monitoring, this was eventually extended to 12-month coverage by a third party to ex-employees. The lawsuit states the delay was unfair to ex-employees, some of whom, including the two class representatives, already purchased expensive identity theft monitoring packages.

According to the complaint, Sony’s ex-employees call the company’s deal inadequate, noting that the credit monitoring and insurance it provides cannot prevent identity fraud, only inform them when it happens. Additionally, the lawsuit alleges that federal agencies have acknowledged that hackers sometimes hold stolen data for over 12 months and that identity fraud can continue to be a threat for many years.

Consequently, the Sony data breach class action lawsuit seeks more substantial protections, including credit card and banking monitoring services for five years, as well as identity theft insurance and credit restoration services, also for five years. The suit asks the court to force Sony to do more to address the potential identity fraud that may follow those affected by the breach indefinitely.

The proposed class includes current and former employees whose personal information was compromised in the leak, including two subclasses in Virginia and California.

The case is Corona et al v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc., case number 2:14-cv-09600, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Is Graco’s Child Seat a Child Trap? A proposed defective products class action lawsuit pending against Graco Children’s Products Inc, over allegations that their children’s car-seats have defective belt buckles, got greenlit this week.

Filed in March 2013 by plaintiff Seth Long, the Graco class action alleges violations and claims under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law, and breach of implied warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

In February 2014, Graco issued a recall of 3.7 million forward-facing toddler seats due to alleged defects with the buckles, which could become so plugged up with food, juice, formula or vomit that they won’t open, according to Long’s complaint. According to court documents, the defective buckles may become stuck in the latched position, making it harder to pull a child out of the car. In July, Graco added a further 1.9 million car seats to the recall.

The National Highway Transportation Safety Agency published a series of reports on the defective car seats at the time of the February recall, and stated that it had been investigating the belt buckles since 2012. Among the problems the Agency encountered during testing were that the buckles would become impenetrable and parents would have to pick up the child and the seat, which together could weigh over 70 pounds, to lift it out of the car in the event of an emergency.

Well, that’s certainly no selling point. FYI, Graco appears to be no stranger to defective product lawsuits—they’ve also faced class actions over allegedly defective cribs, strollers and highchairs…

This particular case is Seth Long v. Graco Children’s Products Inc., case number 3:13-cv-01257, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Top Settlements

Comcast to cough up $50M to end a decade-long consumer antitrust class-action lawsuit brought by consumers who allege the cable-TV service provider engaged in anti-competitive behavior.

This week, a federal judge in Philadelphia has approved a preliminary US$50 million settlement that entitles about 800,000 current and former Comcast cable-TV subscribers in Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery Counties and Philadelphia to US$15 in credits, or Comcast services valued at US$ 30-43.90, according to court documents.

FYI—those services include temporary internet upgrades, six free pay-per-view movies, or two free months of the Movie Channel. Comcast is required to notify its customers in monthly bills and to advertise the settlement in newspapers and magazines throughout the Philadelphia region. A Comcast spokesperson said that former Comcast cable-TV customers in the five counties could also participate in the settlement, if they were subscribed between 1 January 2003, and 31 December 2008. They will be eligible for US$ 15 in cash.

The suit, first filed in Philadelphia federal district court in December 2003, claimed that Comcast engaged in anti competitive behaviour by concentrating its cable systems in the broader Philadelphia area and making it difficult for RCN, a competitor, to expand telecommunications services here. Comcast could charge higher prices for its cable-TV service, the suit claimed.

Hokee Dokee—That’s a wrap folks…Time to adjourn for the week. Have a good one!

Week Adjourned: 12.12.14 – SeaWorld, CA Temp Workers, Nissan

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top stories for the week include SeaWorld, California Temp Workers and Nissan.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Is SeaWorld EZPay not EZ to get out of? Jason Herman, Florida believes so. He filed a consumer fraud class action lawsuit against SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment in Florida this week, alleging the marine park automatically renewed annual passes without consumers’ consent and didn’t follow the terms as stipulated in its own contract when confronted by consumers who allege they were charged excessively. Nice. Know this song…

The SeaWorld lawsuit claims Herman, a Florida resident, purchased a one-year adult EZPay to SeaWorld in Orlando and Busch Gardens in Tampa. He anticipated his first payment of $35.40 on March 18, 2013 would be followed by 11 additional monthly charges of the same amount. However, payments continued to be charged to his credit card through to September 18, he alleges.

According to the proposed class action, Herman was later told by a SeaWorld customer service representative that the wording on the contract stated that if a pass was not paid for in less than 12 months, it would renew automatically on a month-to-month basis. Herman contends that this wording was not included in confirming emails, receipts, tickets or passes, and that his request for a refund was declined.

The lawsuit claims that two separate telephone conversations with SeaWorld customer service representatives failed to provide access to a contract with that wording. Herman found the information online at a later date.

The lawsuit further contends that despite SeaWorld’s allegedly hidden contract, the company was not authorized to automatically renew the passes. In Herman’s case, he purchased his pass on March 18, 2013, and the 11th subsequent payment was charged to his credit card on February 18, 2014 – fully paying off the cost of the annual pass in 11 months.

The lawsuit seeks to represent a class of SeaWorld customers from Florida, Texas, Virginia and California who continued to be charged for their EZpay passes after fully paying for them in less than 12 months.

California Temp Workers Getting Temporary Paperwork? According to a California woman, the temporary employment agency Career Strategies Temporary Inc., (CST), she worked for is in violation of California labor law and she’s filed a class action lawsuit against CST as a result. She alleges CST intentionally failed to provide her and at least 1,000 others with accurate wage statements. That’s handy. The only thing worse than having to do paperwork is not having the paperwork to do the paperwork with, if you follow…

Heads up—the temp worker lawsuit seeks to represent a class of CST workers who were employed in California at any time from November 1, 2013, through the present and who were similarly deprived of accurate wage statements.

So, the allegations, specifically, are that CST violated California state labor law by issuing weekly wage statements that did not include the dates of the associated pay period. “Plaintiff and each class member suffered and suffer injuries as a result of the missing pay period because a reasonable person could not promptly and easily determine the pay period from the wage statement alone without reference to other documents or information,” the complaint states.

According to the employment class action, if an employer knowingly and intentionally fails to accurately itemize a wage statement, an employee can recover the greater of actual damages or statutory fines of $50 for the first violation and $100 for each subsequent violation up to $4,000.

Offering temporary and direct-hire staffing services, California-based CST has offices in seven states. It employed Bengel as a temporary employee “during the applicable statutory period,” during which time Bengal was paid on a weekly basis, according to the complaint. Wonder if anything else will come out of the woodwork on this one…

Top Settlements

Nissan Settlement puts the Brakes on…a defective automotive class action lawsuit it’s facing. Under the terms of the deal, Nissan North America Inc.will pay vehicle owners up to $800 each. If you’re confused as to exactly which defective automotive class action this settlement is for—cast your mind back—to a lawsuit that alleged the braking system in certain Nissan trucks and SUVs is prone to sudden failure, increasing the risk for injury and death.

The lawsuit was originally filed in April 2011 by Brandon and Erin Banks. It alleged the defective sensor posed a serious safety threat to consumers because it controls critical safety aspects of braking and was prone to failure. The defect caused drivers to be suddenly unable to stop their vehicles within a reasonably safe time and distance, or at all.

The complaint states the automaker knew about the defect but hid it from consumers “to [Nissan’s] significant financial gain.”

So to get to the deal, the proposed Nissan settlement terms would see current and former owners of approximately 350,000 2004-2008 Nissan Titans, Armadas and Infiniti QX56 vehicles in the US be able to file claims seeking reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses they incurred in replacing or repairing a defective delta stroke sensor, which is a component of the faulty braking system.

According to court documents, the plaintiffs asked the court to certify a proposed nationwide class of consumers who own or formerly owned the affected vehicles and were forced to replace the faulty sensor. Plaintiffs with personal injury claims relating to the affected vehicles are excluded from the class.

Nissan will begin reimbursement at $20 for vehicle owners who had in excess of 120,000 miles at the time of the repair. Reimbursement will go up to $800 for vehicles that had less than 48,000 miles at the time of repair.

According to the settlement motions, Nissan will distribute notices to the class members via direct mail and to addresses obtained through Nissan or public records utilizing vehicle identification numbers, the motion says. Class members will be directed to a website and a toll-free number maintained by the settlement administrator that will provide information concerning the settlement, including, if requested, a copy of the long form notice.

The case is Banks et al v. Nissan North America, Inc. et al, case number 4:11-cv-02022, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Hokee Dokee—That’s a wrap folks…Time to adjourn for the week. Have a good one!

Week Adjourned: 12.5.14 – Apple, Football Concussions, Truvia

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top stories include Apple, high school football concussions and Truvia sweetener.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Bad, Bad Apple! Again! Really? This week we report an antitrust class action lawsuit filed by three individuals who allege Apple violated federal and state laws by issuing software updates in 2006 for its iPod that prevented iPods from playing songs not purchased on iTunes.

At the risk of grossly oversimplifying the charges, the Apple lawsuit claims that the software updates caused iPod prices to be higher than they otherwise would have been.

The Court in charge of the case is the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and the case is known as In re Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation, C-05-00037-JW.

The Court decided that everyone who fits the following description is a Class Member: All persons or entities in the United States (excluding federal, state and local governmental entities, Apple, its directors, officers and members of their families) who purchased one of the iPod models listed below directly from Apple between September 12, 2006 and March 31, 2009 (“Class Period”). A list of iPod models included in the class can be found here.

We’re losing count of the number of class action lawsuits filed against the technology giant. The Apple allegations have included price fixing, defective products (MacBook Pros, iPhones, iPods), personal data collection, download fees and unpaid overtime, among others. In fact, just last week we reported a proposed $450 million settlement of an antitrust class action against Apple over ebook pricing.

You know, it may just be time to stop drinking the KoolAid—sorry—juice.

Traumatic Brain Injury Trickle-Down…This is interesting—you had to know it was coming. It started with the pros, and now it’s at the high school level. A football concussion and brain injury class action lawsuit has been filed against an Illinois high school association claiming a former football player at one of its member schools developed health problems, including memory loss, because of injuries allegedly sustained as a result of playing high school football.

Filed in Illinois state court by Daniel Bukal, the Illinois football lawsuit claims Bukal played for the Notre Dame College Prep school for four years until 2003. The lawsuit claims that during that time the association failed to put in place policies that would have minimized the kind of concussion injuries Bukal allegedly sustained as a result of playing football. By way of example, the lawsuit claims the association had no policies for schools to follow regarding when to allow injured players to return to the field.

“It is now widely understood and acknowledged that concussions pose serious risks to participants in contact sports, and especially football,” Bukal states in his lawsuit. “Among those risks are brain trauma and potentially debilitating long-term brain injuries. But if the problem of concussions in sports is a crisis, then it would be accurate to call the particular problem of concussions in high school sports an epidemic.”

The lawsuit alleges that high school football players, who are typically between 14 and 19 years of age, are at a higher risk for lasting injuries as a result of physical trauma sustained during football games and practices, because their brains are still developing.

According to the lawsuit, the Illinois high school association does not have sufficient safety protocols in place to protect players against such injuries. The lawsuit also claims that the association does not require schools to conduct any baseline testing for concussions before and during the season.

Additionally, the lawsuit states that the Illinois high school association does not require any medical professionals to be present at games to monitor the safety of players.

Bukal, who has been a team captain and named an offensive MVP during his time on the team, said he continues to suffer the effects of the multiple concussions he sustained during his four years period as a player. According to the lawsuit, Bukal still experiences migraine headaches and “bouts of light-headedness.”

The case is Daniel Bukal v. Illinois High School Association, in the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois. The case number could not immediately be identified Monday.

Top Settlements

Not such a sweet deal for Cargill. The agribusiness giant got its knuckles wrapped for not telling the truth, and has agreed to pony up $6.1 million this week, as settlement of a consumer fraud class action. The allegations are that it falsely marketed its Truvia sweetener as being natural when it actually contains largely synthetic and chemically produced ingredients. You shouldn’t be surprised.

According to the settlement terms, the company will establish a $6.1 million fund which will cover attorney’s fees, incentive fess of $2,000 per named plaintiff and distribution among a nationwide class who purchased any of the Truvia products during a six-year period that ended in July. Eligible class members who file claims will be entitled to receive up to $45 in cash or $90 in vouchers.

Additionally, as part of the settlement, Cargill will make certain label changes that will clarify its “Nature’s Calorie-Free Sweetener” and “Truvia Natural Sweetener provides the same sweetness as two teaspoons of sugar” statements. Further it, will add language directing consumers to a new website with frequently asked questions, and update its Truvia website to better explain to consumers the manufacturing processes involved.

The lawsuit was originally filed in July 2013 alleging that in 2008 Cargill teamed up with Coca-Cola (what’s your first clue) to develop a purportedly natural sweetener that would capitalize on consumers’ desire for a health conscious, non-caloric alternative sweetener. The plaintiffs alleged the labelling and marketing campaign the company developed was deceitful, making consumers believe that Truvia is a natural sweetener made primarily from the stevia plant. Not so, apparently.

According to the complaint, the stevia-derived ingredient, Rebaudioside A, comprises only 1 percent of Truvia and is a highly chemically processed and purified form of stevia leaf extract. The main component of Truvia, erythritol, is synthetically fabricated. Feeling good?

The plaintiffs alleged that through this misleading advertising, the defendants were able to charge approximately 300 percent more per packet than Sweet ‘N Low and 67 percent more per packet than Splenda. That in itself is enough to give you heart failure!

The case is Denise Howerton, Erin Calderon and Ruth Pasarell, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated vs. Cargill Inc., case number 1:13-cv-00336, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii.

Hokee Dokee—Time to adjourn for the week. Have a good one!

Week Adjourned: 11.29.14 – Uber, Dollar General, Apple

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top stories include Uber, Dollar General, Apple

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Uber Drivers being taken for a ride? Maybe… Uber Technologies got slapped with a class action filed by a Boston cabdriver who alleges the mobile app-based car service routinely violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by using background checks without applicants’ knowledge or authorization to make hiring decisions.

Filed on behalf of lead plaintiff Abdul Mohamed, the Uber class action claims that by failing to obtain his authorization for a background check and not disclosing that the company would check his background when he applied for a job as an “Uber X” driver, Uber, its wholly-owned subsidiary Rasier LLC and their employment screening agency Hirease LLC knowingly violated fair credit reporting laws in Massachusetts and California in addition to the FCRA.

The lawsuit also claims that Uber violates the FCRA and state credit reporting laws by using background checks in hiring decisions without providing applicants with copies of their reports.

“In direct violation of the FCRA [and state laws], whenever adverse action is taken against an applicant on the basis of information disclosed on a consumer report, the defendants fail to afford the applicants the procedural safeguards mandated by law… including by failing to provide pre-adverse action notices and a reasonable opportunity to dispute information in such reports before taking adverse action,” the complaint states.

According to the Uber lawsuit, Mohamed applied to be an Uber X driver in September, after having previously worked for Uber as an “Uber Black” driver using his own car. Uber told him he must purchase a new car for the position, which he did at a cost of $25,000. Mohamed then began working as an Uber X driver in early October. However, on October 28, Mohamed received an email from Hirease stating that his contract with Rasier was terminated because of information obtained through a consumer reporting agency, the complaint states.

“[Uber and Rasier] terminated Plaintiff because Hirease’s consumer report concerning Plaintiff indicated he had a minor criminal record that, in fact, stems from his seven children receiving much-needed Medicaid benefits,” the lawsuit alleges. “[Uber] termination of Plaintiff deprived him of his livelihood and left him without an alternative means of providing for his family, including his seven children.” Mohamed alleges that despite an email stating he had received a copy of his consumer reports and rights under the FRCA, he did not receive the described materials.

Further, the lawsuit states that Mohamed did not have an opportunity to review the information on his consumer report and discuss it with Uber and Rasier.

As part of its employment screening services, Hirease provides a package that automatically generates pre-adverse action and adverse action notices to an applicant, along with a copy of the consumer report, whenever Hirease makes an adverse hiring decision based on pre-determined criteria.

“Consumer reporting agencies routinely provide a similar service and many employers purchase it,” the lawsuit states. “Uber and Rasier could have easily and cost-effectively complied with the mandates of the FCRA, CCRAA, and MCRA by purchasing such services, but failed to do so.”

The case is Mohamed v. Uber Technologies Inc et al., case number 3:14-cv-05200, in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California.

Top Settlements

Dollar General Can’t Cheap Out on Its Staff. An $8.3 million settlement agreement has been approved by a federal judge in Alabama, potentially ending an unpaid overtime class action lawsuit pending against Dollar General. The Dollar General lawsuit alleged the discount retailer failed to properly pay store managers for overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The lawsuit dates back to 2006.

Specific allegations against Dollar General and its subsidiaries and sister companies, are that they required the store managers to work as much as 90 hours per week and misclassified them a exempt from overtime, even though they generally spent less than 10 hours weekly performing managerial duties. The settlement will cover some 2,722 individual claims.

According to the complaint, most of the store managers’ work hours involved non-managerial tasks such as operating cash registers. As a result, Dollar General allegedly short-changed the employees on overtime pay, according to the suit. Dollar General denied that it had misclassified the workers.

U.S. District Judge L. Scott Coogler granted approval of the settlement stating “The court finds that: the amended settlement agreement is fair; it reflects reasonable compromises of issues actually in dispute; the settlement was reached in an adversarial context in which the plaintiffs were represented by competent and experienced counsel; and the totality of the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable.”

The case is Richter v. Dolgencorp Inc. et al., case number 7:06-cv-01537, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Settlement Takes a Bite out of Apple…Final approval of a $450 settlement has been granted ending an antitrust class action lawsuit against Apple Inc. The lawsuit alleged that Apple conspired publishers to raise e-book prices. While all the publishers settled their claims, only Apple went to trial.

The lawsuit was brought by the US Department of Justice and 33 states and claimed that in 2010 Apple signed distribution deals with five top publishers, namely Simon & Schuster Inc., Penguin Group USA, Macmillan Publishers USA, Hachette Book Group Inc. and HarperCollins Publishers LLC, that raised the prices for digital books from $9.99 to as much as $14.99. This resulted in consumers paying hundreds of millions of dollars. In July 2013, Judge Denise Cote ruled that Apple had “played a central role in facilitating and executing” the conspiracy. The company has since appealed that decision to the Second Circuit.

Under the terms of the settlement, consumers will receive $400 million. According to court documents, a claims administrator and e-book retailers have sent emails or postcards to almost 23 million addresses of people eligible to receive compensation.

The settlement contains a provision allowing Apple to pay $50 million to consumers and $10 million each to the states and class counsel if Judge Cote’s 2013 decision finding Apple liable is vacated and remanded on appeal or reversed and remanded with instructions for reconsideration or a new trial. If the decision is simply reversed, Apply will pay nothing.

The cases are In re: Electronic Books Antitrust Litigation, case number 1:11-md-02293, and State of Texas et al. v. Penguin Group (USA) Inc. et al., case number 1:12-cv-03394, both in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Hokee Dokee—Time to adjourn for the week. Happy Thanksgiving!! Gobble Gobble!

Week Adjourned: 11.21.14 – Chrysler, Sephora, Boston Scientific

The top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week. Top stories include Chrysler, Sephora and Boston Scientific Mesh.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Tipsy TIPMs? Topping the list this week? Another defective automotive class action lawsuit—surprise, surprise. Never would have guessed, right?

This one was filed in federal court against Chrysler Group LLC. The lawsuit seeks to hold the Big Three automobile maker accountable for economic losses suffered by owners and passengers of Chrysler cars and trucks that stalled, caught fire or sustained other potentially life-endangering malfunctions due to a faulty onboard computer.

The Chrysler lawsuit alleges that Chrysler knew about and fraudulently concealed the defectiveness of its Totally Integrated Power Module—TIPM, for short. Chrysler sought as far back as 2005 to hide the magnitude of the TIPM defect from consumers and initiated only limited vehicle recalls, the complaint alleges.

Despite knowing about the defect, Chrysler continued installing faulty TIPMs in vehicles until the 2014 model year, according to the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The TIPM is an integral component of many Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep models on the road today, the device controls and distributes power to all of a vehicle’s electrical functions. Prone to sudden failure, a vehicle’s TIPM poses a serious safety issue, placing the driver and passengers at risk of harm, the complaint indicates.

A failed TIPM causes malfunctioning of airbags, headlights, brakes, horns, wipers, windows, door locks and other components that rely on electrical functions.Worse, a failed TIPM can cause a vehicle’s engine to shut down unexpectedly while driving at high speeds.

“Millions of consumers who have bought into this brand have suffered harm because of Chrysler and its faulty Totally Integrated Power Module,” the complaint alleges.

Owners of defective TIPM-equipped Chrysler vehicles suffer economic losses in part because the device is expensive to replace, costing upward of $1,000. Also, because of the sheer number of vehicles requiring a new TIPM, consumers are forced to make do without their vehicles for many days and even weeks while their vehicles sit in the shop and wait for a replacement TIPM to be shipped. Adding insult to injury, the defect caused many motorists to incur unnecessary costs to replace non-defective parts that malfunctioned because of the faulty TIPM.

Ugly Side of Beauty Biz? Sephora USA Inc. is facing a proposed discrimination class action lawsuit. Filed in New York federal court, the discrimination lawsuit claims the company deactivated thousands of Asian customers’ accounts, allegedly motivated by a racist belief that they were buying discounted beauty products in bulk and reselling them for profit.

Brought by four women of Chinese descent, the discrimination class action claims Sephora shut down Asian users’ accounts after its site crashed on November 6, due to a surge in web traffic resulting from a 20 percent-off sale promotion. According to Sephora, reselling of its products is pervasive. The company said it blocked some North American and international customer accounts for this reason.

According to the plaintiffs, the only accounts that were deactivated were those that used Chinese web domains or had names that Sephora perceived as being of Asian origin. A plaintiffs’ attorney said an investigation revealed that only users who fell into those two categories had their accounts blocked.

According to the lawsuit, the four named plaintiffs live in New York, Philadelphia, and Columbus, Ohio, and were all members of Sephora’s ‘Beauty Insider’ program. The program gives customers who spend certain amounts on the company’s products access to discounts and other promotions. The points the women accumulated by buying Sephora products, and which give access to additional discounts and special gifts, have been lost, according to the plaintiffs’ attorneys. Sephora alleges it only went ahead with the deactivations after it “identified certain entities who take advantage of promotional opportunities to purchase products in large volume on our website and resell them through other channels.”

Attorneys for the plaintiffs said that instead of deactivating accounts, Sephora could have addressed the resale issue by limiting the number of products a single customer could purchase or capping the amount of money they could spend. Sounds sensible.

The named plaintiffs seek to represent a class of Sephora customers who were part of the Beauty Insider program who either are or are perceived as being of Chinese or Asian ethnicity and had their accounts blocked or deactivated following the website crash. The potential class is expected to be in the thousands.

The case is Xiao Xiao et al., v. Sephora USA Inc. et al., case number 14-cv-9181, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Top Settlements

Boston Scientific Bellwether Results… A jury has awarded $18.5 million against Boston Scientific Corp in settlement of transvaginal mesh litigation brought by four women who alleged the implanted medical device left them with nerve damage, infections and pain during sex.

The trial was heard by a federal jury in West Virginia and is the second verdict against the company over defective vaginal slings. Last week a federal jury in Florida issued a $26.7 million verdict against Boston Scientific for providing insufficient warnings about the risks of its Pinnacle mesh device.

The four women in the West Virginia case sued Boston Scientific over the defective Obtryx transvaginal sling. “In these cases, the jurors clearly understood that Boston Scientific moved too quickly in bringing its product to market, and that it used inappropriate materials while at the same time failing to warn doctors and patients about the risks involved,” said on the of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs. Each of the women will receive $1 million in punitive damages under the terms of the settlement.

The multidistrict litigation being heard in Miami, also involved four women who alleged suffering and injury after having the sling implanted. It was the first federal bellwether trial against Boston Scientific, one of seven manufacturers of pelvic mesh that face about 60,000 lawsuits across the country.

Transvaginal Mesh and Transvaginal Slings are medical devices that are surgically implanted to treat Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP) and/or Stress Urinary Incontinence(SUI).

Hokee Dokee—Time to adjourn for the week. Have a fab weekend–See you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 11.15.14 – Honda, Barnes & Noble, Lean Spa

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top stories include Honda, Barnes & Noble, Lean Spa

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Airbag Alert. Heads up—thought the avalanche of defective automotive class action lawsuits was over? Think again!

This week Japanese parts supplier Takata Corporation and automaker Honda Motor Co., got hit with a lawsuit over recent rash of recalls due to faulty airbag inflators installed in millions of vehicles in the United States. Yup—millions of vehicles. Bet that makes you happy.

Bottom line, according to the lawsuit, Takata embarked on a concealment campaign, designed to cover-up evidence of airbag defects. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on November 7, 2014, claims that Takata withheld knowledge of the airbag defects from federal regulators and ordered its technicians to destroy data evidencing any housing defects, including video and computer backups.

Instead of safely deploying airbags to protect vehicle occupants, the defective Takata inflators, installed in millions of Honda vehicles, explode, sending metal and plastic shrapnel into the vehicle cabin, according to the complaint. The defective Takata inflators have caused multiple injuries and fatalities.

According to legal representatives for the class, in 2004, Takata and Honda were made aware of a dangerous propensity for airbag inflator explosion in vehicles equipped with Takata airbags—a driver in Alabama was severely injured from metal shrapnel during an accident.

The suit seeks to represent anyone in the United States who purchased or leased a Honda vehicle with a defective Takata airbag and that has been subject to an airbag-related warning or recall.

The complaint has eight named plaintiffs from California, Florida, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Virginia and Washington.

The suit accuses Takata of manufacturing cheap airbags that “blew up like hand-grenades, sending lethal metal and plastic shrapnel into the vehicle cockpit and into the bodies of the drivers and passengers.”

Pass it on…

Could you recite these complaints chapter and verse? Barnes and Noble behaving badly…and the bookseller is facing an unpaid overtime lawsuit to prove it. The potential class action is seeking nationwide certification. The lawsuit was filed by the company’s assistant store managers who allege they were misclassified as exempt from overtime and that their primary role was not to supervise other employees but rather to provide customer service. The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for a nationwide class.

According to the plaintiffs, B&N assistant store manager positions are misclassified as exempt under state and federal law. Specifically, while some managerial work is required, assistant store managers have been “primarily engaged in the same routine tasks as hourly employees.” Those tasks include helping customers find merchandise, working cash registers, stocking shelves and helping out in the store’s cafe area, the class certification motion states.

According to the complaint, B&N assistant store managers spent between 75 percent to 90 percent of their time completing the same types of “hourly duties” that other employees were required to perform. Further, the plaintiffs claim that the work required of assistant store managers was governed by B&N’s nationwide policy, making the case ripe for class certification. “At B&N, all ASMs are required to follow closely circumscribed corporate policies and rules established by their store manager,” the motion said. “These policies are implemented across the B&N brand and ASMs are prohibited from deviating from these guidelines.”

The motion is seeking class certification of New York assistant managers who worked at B&N between January 25, 2007, and July 2010 and conditional certification under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act for a nationwide class. B&N reclassified the assistant store manager position in June 2010.

The case Steven Trimmer et al. v. Barnes & Noble Inc. et al., case number 1:13-cv-00579, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Top Settlements

Lean Spa getting off Lite? The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the State of Connecticut have reached a settlement with LeanSpa for allegedly engaging in consumer fraud by using fake news websites to promote acai berry and “colon cleanse” weight-loss products, making deceptive weight-loss claims, and telling consumers they could receive free trial products by paying a nominal fee for shipping and handling.

In addition to allegations of creating fake new websites, the deceptive marketing class action also claimed that the marketers of the weight loss supplement LeanSpa falsely informed consumers that they could receive a free trial of the weight loss products if they paid a small shipping and handling fee.

However, the lawsuit contends that consumers in fact paid nearly $80 for the “free” trial and were signed up for monthly subscriptions that were difficult to cancel. Consumers reportedly paid more than $25 million to the defendants.

The FTC and the state of Connecticut shut down the alleged LeanSpa scam operation and charged the defendants with violating portions of the FTC Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, in 2011. Then, in January, 2014 an agreement was reached between the parties in which the marketers of LeanSpa supplements have agreed to pay up to $7 million in consumer refunds.

Eligible consumers include people who bought LeanSpa weight loss or other LeanSpa health supplements such as LeanSpa; LeanSpa with Acai; LeanSpa with HCA; LeanSpa Cleanse; NutraSlim; NutraSlim with HCA; QuickDetox; and SlimFuel.

Hokee Dokee…time to adjourn for the week. Have a fab weekend–See you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 11.7.14 – Apple, Charles Schwab, Hertz

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top stories include Apple, Charles Schwab and Hertz.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Sour Apples? Apple found itself on the end of yet another defective products class action lawsuit this week over allegations that the MacBook Pro series of laptop computers are defectively designed, causing the computers to malfunction.

Filed by Los Angeles resident Armen Soudijan, the Apple MacBook lawsuit claims that Soudijan purchased a MacBook Pro laptop in 2013, which came “with a defective graphics processing unit and/or defective graphics card implementation.” Specifically, the lawsuit claims that the defect “breaks the computer screen, causes computer freezes, crashes, and ultimately renders the laptop computers unusable.”

In the complaint Soudijan alleges “he was subjecting the laptop to normal use, including use of video processing, when he experienced a range of screen malfunctions, freezes, and ultimately crashes….The frequency and severity of the problem continued and increased. ”

According to the lawsuit, Soudijan’s MacBook Pro belongs to a line of Apple laptops released in 2011, which includes the 13 inch, 15 inch, and 17 inch screens. “Each of these products is designed, manufactured, marketed, sold, and built with a similar graphic processing unit and graphics processing card implementation and design, which is flawed and defective and causes the machine to unreasonably fail,” the lawsuit claims.

“Symptoms of failure include, but are not limited to, lines on the screen, garbled text, colored lines, rendering of the screen useless, freezes, shutdowns, and crashes, including data loss and full hardware malfunction,” the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit goes on to claim that the problems associated with the MacBook Pro have been reported by numerous customers through online and print forums, and that people experience these problems shortly after purchasing their Apple computers. The lawsuit further claims that “Apple is aware of the issue and had not take[n] adequate steps to remedy the situation either through warranty claims, recalls, or otherwise.”

The lawsuit against Apple in this MacBook Pro lawsuit cites violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment, and is seeking damages and injunctive relief, and prevention ofApple from selling defective products.

The Defective MacBook Pro Class Action Lawsuit is Soudjian v. Apple Inc., Case No. BC562621, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

Top Settlements

What was that about Accountability? At Charles Schwab & Co., they say it exists. But…yet another unpaid overtime class action was settled this week—this one filed by financial consultants who allege they were misclassified and subsequently denied overtime by Charles Schwab & Co.

A $3.8 million settlement has been approved, potentially ending claims that Charles Schwab & Co violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by classifying its international CDT financial consultants and associate financial consultants as exempt from overtime pay. They are responsible for cross-selling financial products to existing brokerage and banking customers.

According to the complaint, the consultants alleged that they did not fall under any federal or California exemptions to overtime laws. They allege that they were encouraged by the defendant “to work beyond their scheduled shifts without compensation, failing to allow them to record overtime hours they worked and failing to compensate them for overtime hours they worked,” according to the complaint.

Charles Schwab agreed to settle the complaint just days after it was filed. According to the terms of the settlement two thirds of the funds will be distributed among hundreds of employees working as financial consultants in Charles Schwab call centers around the country. The settlement covers work performed between November 2009 and February 2014, or in the case of the international consultants, between November 2010 and February 2014.

Named plaintiffs Dana Aboud, William Hicks, Michael Porowski and Albert Schweizer will each receive $7,500 as compensation for their part in the unpaid overtime class action.

The case is Aboud et al. v. Charles Schwab & Co. Inc., case number 1:14-cv-02712, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Driving checks to the banks. A $53 million settlement has been reached in a consumer fraud class action lawsuit pending against Hertz Corp, and two Nevada airports brought by plaintiffs who alleged they were unlawfully charged undisclosed fees.

The Hertz settlement received final approval on October 30th, and contains $43.2 million restitution for Hertz customers who were billed for “airport concession recovery fees” at airports in Reno or Las Vegas between October 2003 and September 2009. Way to go!

The back story—the lawsuit was filed by plaintiffs Janet Sobel and Daniel Dugan, alleging Hertz violated a Nevada Revised Statute that requires car rental firms to include all charges in the rates they advertise in order to make rate comparisons reliable for those looking for the best deal. Specifically, Hertz allegedly tacked on a recovery fee separately from the rate it quoted its customers. The complaint stated that Hertz used that extra fee to pass along to consumers an assessment imposed on the company by the airports, which charge Hertz and other rental car firms a percentage of their gross revenues for the right to operate on site.

Hokee Dokee- Time to adjourn for the week. Have a fab weekend–See you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 10.31.14 – Trump U, Asbestos, Paper Carriers

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top stories include Trump University, Asbestos and Paper Carriers.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

You’re Fired! No wait—that’s the wrong show. This show is in fact a legal one—a consumer fraud class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) filed against Donald Trump. And it just got certified baby! by U.S. District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel.

The Trump U lawsuit alleges that through false claims Trump made regarding Trump University LLC, he would gain tens of millions of dollars from attendees who believed they would learn Trump’s real estate secrets. (isn’t Trump University an oxymoron?)

The judge decided that California businessman Art Cohen, the lead plaintiff in the racketeering class action, had provided sufficient evidence that the marketing of the allegedly fraudulent live events, including mailers with prominent pictures and quotes from Trump, as well as a coat of arms and educational language, resulted in thousands of people to pay to attend.

In the lawsuit, Cohen accuses Trump of failing to teach the students his investment secrets, failing to contribute in any meaningful way to the curriculum for the live events or choose the seminar instructors and mentors. Moreover, the New York State Education Department warned the defendant that using the name “University” was illegal without a license, while multiple attorneys general launched investigations into the deceptive practices, according to the complaint.

The lawsuit further alleges that Trump uniformly misled Cohen and the class that they would learn his real estate secrets through him and his handpicked professors at the elite Trump University, which is now named the Trump Entrepreneur Institute. Cohen alleges he attended a free seminar after receiving a “special invitation” in the mail, then paid almost $1,500 to attend a three-day real estate retreat, where he paid almost $35,000 more for additional training.

In his certification, Judge Curiel wrote, “Although [Trump] may yet show that plaintiff and the putative class members knew or should have known that defendant had devised a scheme to falsely market Trump University via mail or wire prior to October 2009, the court is satisfied that determination of defendant’s statute of limitations defense in this case will not defeat the predominance of common issues in this case.”

Judge Curiel also ruled that Cohen’s claims were typical of those among other proposed class members because plaintiff’s description of his experience with Trump University matched the allegations alleged on behalf of the putative class in his complaint.

The case is Art Cohen et al. v. Donald J. Trump, case number 3:13-cv-02519, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

Top Settlements

Asbestos Settlement Stands. Asbestos—the problem that will not die. But here’s a good result from a bad situation. An $18 million dollar asbestos settlement will stand, as ordered by the judges involved in the Izell case in California. The lawsuit was filed by plaintiffs Bobbie and Helen Izell alleging Bobbie developed mesothelioma from asbestos exposure to defendant Union Carbide’s products, resulting in his death.

Until 1985, Union Carbide was a supplier of asbestos to companies that made and marketed products for the construction industry. According to their lawsuit, Bobbie Izell owned a construction company and built about 200 homes in California between 1964 and 1994. While he did not work as a laborer or supervisor, the plaintiff alleges he often visited the jobsites.

At the time the lawsuit went to court, just five defendants remained, including Union Carbide. The trial took four weeks and the jury found for Izell, awarding the plaintiffs $30 million in compensatory damages and $18 million in punitive damages. The award consisted of $5 million in past and $10 million in future non-economic damages and $5 million in past and $10 million in future loss of consortium damages. The jury assigned 65 percent liability to Union Carbide. However, the award for compensatory damages was reduced by $24 million to $6 million.

Paper carriers taking checks to the bank! Read all about it! Yup—they won their employment lawsuit against the publishers of the now bankrupt North County News in San Diego. The $3.2 settlement ends claims against Lee Publications Inc, alleging the carriers they were misclassified and undercompensated as independent contractors, and unfairly dinged for missed or wet papers.

The lawsuit was filed in 2008 by plaintiffs seeking to represent roughly 800 home-delivery carriers who alleged the publisher treated them like employees but paid them like contractors. The lawsuit further claimed Lee personnel supervised, trained and otherwise treated them like employees but, in violation of California labor laws, denied them overtime, meal and rest breaks, and other employee benefits, according to their complaint.

According to the complaint, the company also docked its carriers up to $5 for each customer complaint about damaged, wet or “allegedly undelivered” papers, which, the plaintiffs argued was an attempt by Lee to make the plaintiffs unlawful insurers of the company’s merchandise. Allegedly, the carriers were given more papers than they had customers on their delivery route, and then Lee would deduct from their compensation the cost for each extra paper. Nice bunch to work for, not.

In the settlement, the class members will be eligible to receive shares in the $3.2 million fund, minus plaintiffs attorneys’ fees and costs, and $36,000 total for eight lead plaintiffs. Bet they’re celebrating this weekend.

Hokee Dokee—Time to adjourn for the week. Have a fab weekend—See you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 10.24.14 – Abercrombie & Fitch, Verizon, CVS Caremark

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements–top stories include Abercrombie & Fitch, Verizon, and CVS Caremark

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Abercrummy & Fitch…This week’s wage and hour class action involves Abercrombie & Fitch—no stranger to employment lawsuits—over allegations of violations of California labor law and state and federal overtime law. The lawsuit claims the clothing retailer misclassifies its sales and stockroom associates as exempt from overtime wages even though they regularly work more than 40 hours in a week and are often “on call” during other shifts. You’d think they’d know the drill on this stuff by now…

The lawsuit alleges hourly workers at the company’s Abercrombie & Fitch and Hollister stores often work overtime hours and are scheduled for certain “call-in” shifts, during which the employees are required to call the store an hour before a shift begins to see if the stores need them to work. The employees must keep the call-in hours open but are not compensated if the stores don’t need them to report for work.

Filed by lead plaintiff Samantha Jones, the complaint states she was employed by the national clothing retailer from December 2005 through to January 2014 in its namesake Hollister stores. She was employed as a brand representative, model, a term used to refer to hourly associates on the sales floor and impact team member, an hourly associate working in the back of the store and eventually was promoted to a manager position.

Jones alleges that she was classified as a non-exempt employee during the entire period of her employment with the defendant that she was paid on an hourly basis and entitled to overtime wage. However, the defendant has a “uniform policy and practice” of failing to compensate employees for all hours worked.

Jones further claims that Abercrombie failed to keep accurate records and pay Jones and the putative class members for their hours worked, including failing to record on-call hours and the overtime hours generated by the on-call shifts.

Specifically, the complaint states: “Defendants, as a matter of corporate policy, practice and procedure, intentionally, knowingly and systematically failed to compensate plaintiff and the class members for all hours worked (for on-call time), and undercompensated them for overtime worked that should have been paid at overtime rates had the on-call time been paid for.”

The lawsuit seeks to represent a nationwide Fair Labor Standards Act class, a California class and a California subclass, composed of individuals who were classified as nonexempt, paid on an hourly basis and scheduled for call-in shifts.

The suit is Jones v. Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Company, case number 3:14-cv-04631, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Top Settlements

Verizon to Pay Unpaid Overtime—to the tune of $15 million, according to a settlement agreement reached this week. The agreement will end a wage and hour class action lawsuit brought against Verizon California Inc alleging violations of California labor law. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed Verizon issued inaccurate wage statements that omitted crucial information making it impossible for the workers to determine whether they had been paid properly.

In addition to approving the Verizon settlement motion, Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff certified the proposed settlement class, which consists of employees paid biweekly in California who received itemized income statements from Verizon between April 1, 2009 and May 2011.

Filed by former Verizon field technician Hector Banda in April 2010, the lawsuit alleges Verizon violated the California Labor Code and the code’s Private Attorney General Act by not listing the pay period beginning date, applicable hourly rates and number of hours worked at each rate on the wage statements it issued to employees. A similar complaint was filed by Scott Cerkoney three months after the first lawsuit and the cases were subsequently consolidated in 2011.

According to the complaint, Verizon allegedly issued some 223,000 wage statements to its 6,800 employees during the class period.

The cases are Hector Banda et al. v. Verizon California Inc. et al., case number BC434587, and Scott Cerkoney et al. v. Verizon California Inc. et al., case number BC442358, both in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

And CVS Caremark, too! Yet another California labor law and unpaid overtime class action settlement to report this week—this one a final $2.8 million settlement for CVS Caremark pharmacists, who alleged violations of California labor law. A California judge approved the settlement of class claims that the pharmacy chain improperly forced hundreds of Southern California pharmacists to work seven days straight without overtime. This is the first settlement of six such lawsuits pending against the retailer alleging unpaid overtime.

The CVS Caremark settlement will provide damages to 627 CVS pharmacists who are or were employed in CVS’ “Region 72,” the Southern California area that is one of CVS’ six regions in that state. The settlement represents roughly 70 percent of plaintiffs’ estimation of CVS’ total potential liability.

Named plaintiff Connie Meneses filed suit in August 2012, alleging CVS was improperly forcing its pharmacists to work seven days in a row without paying overtime for the seventh, in violation of a state law that mandates pharmacists be given a day off after six days of work.

The case is Connie Meneses et al. v. CVS Pharmacy Inc. et al., case number BC489739, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

Hokee Dokee—Time to adjourn for the week. Have a fab weekend—See you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 10.17.14 – GM, LinkedIn, Extendicare Health

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top stories include GM, LinkedIn and Extendicare Health

Top Class Action Lawsuits

General Motors Co. Better Buckle Up because they are facing the mother of defective automotive class actions… two consumer fraud class action lawsuits to be precise, which combined, seek to represent drivers of 27 million vehicles in the US.

Thought to be the largest lawsuits brought against GM to date, they stem from GM’s series of recalls prompted by 60 serious defects in 27 million vehicles, according to legal documents. The plaintiffs are seeking $10 billion in compensation for reduced values of their vehicles.

The proposed GM lawsuits seek to represent owners who bought or leased a GM recalled vehicle between July 2009 and July 2014 and either still have it, sold it after mid-February, when the recalls started, or had an accident that destroyed it after that date. More than 20 million customers could join the lawsuit, according to the attorneys representing the plaintiffs.

According to the complaints filed on Tuesday in federal court in Manhattan, “New GM repeatedly proclaimed that it was a company committed to innovation, safety and maintaining a strong brand.” “New GM” is the re-branded name for automaker after its 2009 bankruptcy and government bailout. “The value of all GM-branded vehicles has diminished as a result of the widespread publication of those defects and New GM’s corporate culture of ignoring and concealing safety defects.”

Hundreds of individual complaints against GM about vehicle values were combined in two class actions, with the larger suit involving vehicles made after the bankruptcy. The smaller suite focused on ignition-switch faults in vehicles made before the bailout. Both complaints say the vehicles at issue started losing value in February 2014, a situation that continues, affecting Chevy Camaros with model years 2010 and 2011 that lost $2,000 in value, and the 2009 Pontiac Solstice, which has lost almost $3,000 in value, according to the suits.

More than 27 deaths have been attributed to the defects, according to the latest claims report released earlier this week by the attorney overseeing the compensation fund for victims of crashes stemming from the defects.

The cases are In re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, case number 1:14-md-02543, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On LinkedIn? Heads Up—the social networking site is facing a proposed class action alleging that the “trusted reference” reports offered through the 300 million-member professional social network don’t comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) certification and disclosure requirements. Oops.

All kidding aside, the alleged breach could have far reaching effects, not surprisingly. The LinkedIn lawsuit, filed in California federal court, claims LinkedIn must comply with the same standards mandated by the FCRA for credit reporting agencies who furnish consumer reports for employment purposes. The lawsuit contends that the company has filed to do so, by not maintaining reasonable procedures to limit the furnishing of consumer reports containing inaccurate information to potential employers. This could, in turn, potentially harm job applicants who are evaluated based on that information. Got it?

Here’s the skinny: filed on behalf of plaintiff Tracee Sweet and others, the complaint states that LinkedIn offers a premium service allowing users to click on a member’s profile and select a “search for references” link. The site then generates a reference report containing the names, locations, employment areas, current employers and current positions of all persons in the user’s network who may have worked with that individual.

According to the lawsuit, any potential employer using these reports can anonymously dig into the employment history of any LinkedIn member, and make hiring and firing decisions without the knowledge of the member, without any safeguards in place to ensure the potential employer received accurate information.

“Such secrecy in dealing in consumer information directly contradicts the express purposes of the FCRA, which was enacted to promote accuracy, fairness and the privacy of personal information assembled by credit reporting agencies,” the lawsuit states.

Further, the lawsuit states that the information regarding employment history, including job titles is supplied by each individual member, and LinkedIn therefore relies solely on each of its members to accurately input and update their own employment history. If a LinkedIn member misrepresented his or her job title from a past employer or included other fabricated employment information in their profile, that information would appear on a reference report for any other LinkedIn member who may have worked at the same employer with that individual.

“Such inaccurate information could lead to negative consequences for any job applicant whose potential employer contacts that reference,” the complaint states.

The lawsuit seeks to represent all LinkedIn users in the United States who had a reference report generated on from their profile within the last two years, and a subclass of anyone who also applied for employment through a LinkedIn job posting.

The case is Tracee Sweet et al. v. LinkedIn Corp., case number 3:14-cv-04531, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Top Settlements

Extendicare Didn’t Care? This settlement hits a number of buttons—for all the wrong reasons. Extendicare Health Services Inc. and its subsidiary Progressive Step Corporation (ProStep) have agreed to pay $38 million to the United States and eight states to resolve allegations that Extendicare billed Medicare and Medicaid for materially substandard elder care nursing services that were so deficient that they were effectively worthless and billed Medicare for medically unreasonable and unnecessary rehabilitation therapy services, the Justice Department and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG) jointly announced today. This resolution is the largest failure of care settlement with a chain-wide skilled nursing facility in the department’s history. Investigators were tipped off by whistleblowers at Extendicare.

As part of this settlement, Extendicare has also been required to enter into a five year chain-wide Corporate Integrity Agreement with HHS-OIG. Extendicare is a Delaware corporation that, through its subsidiaries, operates 146 skilled nursing facilities in 11 states. No small operation. ProStep provides physical, speech, and occupational rehabilitation services.

This settlement resolves allegations that between 2007 and 2013, in 33 of its skilled nursing homes in eight states, Extendicare billed Medicare and Medicaid for materially substandard skilled nursing services and failed to provide care to its residents that met federal and state standards of care and regulatory requirements. The government alleges, for example, that Extendicare failed to have a sufficient number of skilled nurses to adequately care for its skilled nursing residents; failed to provide adequate catheter care to some of the residents and failed to follow the appropriate protocols to prevent pressure ulcers or falls. The eight states involved in this component of the settlement are Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin.

Additionally, this settlement resolves allegations that between 2007 and 2013, in 33 of its skilled nursing homes, Extendicare provided medically unreasonable and unnecessary rehabilitation therapy services to its Medicare Part A beneficiaries, particularly during the patients’ assessment reference periods, so that it could bill Medicare for those patients at the highest per diem rate possible.

As a result of the settlement, the federal government will receive $32.3 million and the eight state Medicaid programs will receive $5.7 million. The Medicaid program is funded jointly by the federal and state governments.

Hokee Dokee—Time to adjourn for the week. Have a fab weekend—See you at the bar!