Class Action - Part 31

Week Adjourned: 3.23.12 (GoDaddy, Yo-Plus Yogurt, Honda Hybrid)

Lots of consumer fraud class action lawsuits this week in our weekly wrap up of the top class action lawsuits and settlements, for the week ending March 23, 2012.

Top Class Actions

Bit of a theme here this week—consumer fraud.

And this one is for anyone who has ever registered at least 5 domain names, thinking they were getting a bargain. GoDaddy, the Internet domain registration giant, is facing a possible consumer fraud class action lawsuit over its allegedly illegal charges for private registration services it advertises as being free.

The GoDaddy lawsuit claims that while GoDaddy offers free private domain registration to customers who register five or more domain names at the same time, when those customers go to renew their domains they are charged at the regular price.

The lawsuit, filed by Florida company WineStyles, states “By suggesting that the value of ‘FREE’ Private Registration was $9.99/yr, and that the ‘FREE’ service had ‘NO LIMIT!’, GoDaddy represented that the ‘FREE’ Private Registration services would be for the lifetime of the domain name, and Plaintiff (and on information and belief, the Class) believed this to be the case.”

The GoDaddy lawsuit also states that renewal notices sent to customers do not indicate that the privacy services would no longer be free upon renewal. And, the plaintiffs allege “Throughout the class period, GoDaddy provided wholly inadequate disclaimers on GoDaddy.com, which reiterated the ‘FREE’ offer but never mentioned to Customers that the Private Registration service would be automatically renewed by GoDaddy at the full price applicable to single domain name purchases, instead of for ‘FREE.’”

The proposed consumer fraud lawsuit is brought on behalf of customers who registered 5 or more domains, received the “free” private registration, and then were charged a fee for the proxy services when they renewed between March 19, 2006 and the present.

Yo! – Yogurt-eaters of California! You may be affected by a consumer fraud class action lawsuit facing General Mills that alleges the company falsely advertised the digestive health benefits of its Yo-Plus® brand of yogurt.

The lawsuit is called Johnson v. General Mills, Inc., Case No. 10-00061-CJC(ANx), and is in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Court decided this lawsuit should be a class action on behalf of a “Class,” or group of people, that could include you.

The lawsuit claims that General Mills falsely advertised its Yo-Plus® brand of yogurt by claiming that Yo-Plus® yogurt provides digestive health benefits when General Mills didn’t have a scientific basis to make that claim. The Yo-Plus® lawsuit seeks the return of money to the purchasers and a court order prohibiting the advertising. General Mills denies it did anything wrong and says its Yo-Plus® advertising was truthful and always substantiated by scientific evidence.

The Court has not decided whether the Class or General Mills is right. The attorneys for the Class will have to prove their claims at a trial.

The Class, on whose behalf the lawsuit is brought, is defined as “All persons who purchased Yo-Plus® in the State of California from the date Yo-Plus® was first sold in California to the date notice is first provided to the Class.” You may be a Class Member and, if so, you have a choice of whether to stay in the Class or opt out–Yo-Plus® class action lawsuit claim information can be found here at the claims administrator’s site.

If you are included, you have to decide whether to stay in the Class and be bound by whatever results, or ask to be excluded and keep your right to sue General Mills. There is no money available now and no guarantee that there will be. To find out more by reading about the Yo-Plus® lawsuit here.

Top Settlements

Happy Honda–remember that slogan? No? Well, if you’re part of the Honda Hybrid class action lawsuit you may become a Happy Honda Owner. Maybe. This week, a proposed settlement was approved by a San Diego Superior Court judge in a consumer fraud class-action lawsuit brought by Honda car owners over allegations that Honda hybrid vehicles were not as fuel-efficient as advertised and had problems with battery life.

The Honda Hybrid settlement affects some 460,000 owners and lessees of Honda Civic Hybrids and includes model year vehicles from 2003 to 2009. This is the Honda lawsuit, if you recall, in which Heather Peters of California opted out of the Honda class action lawsuit in order to sue Honda on her own.

According to the terms of the settlement, each class member is entitled to a $100 cash payment and a rebate certificate valued at $500 or $1,000.

Folks who make up a subclass of the lawsuit, who experienced car problems caused by a software upgrade, could receive an additional $100 and an additional $500 rebate, according to reports. Software upgrades–aren’t they just the bane of modern day existence. I digress.

In any event, court documents would indicate the total settlement could reach $461.3 million, and includes a net award of attorney fees of more than $8.1 million.

OK –That’s a wrap. Happy Friday everyone – see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 3.17.12 (Apple Siri, Plumb-PEX, Blue Sky)

The weekly wrap-up of class action lawsuits and class action settlements, for the week ending March 17, 2012.

Top Class Actions

But Siriously Folks…Apple got hit with a potential consumer fraud class action lawsuit…Siri Siri Siriously…The lawsuit alleges the company’s voice assistant feature found on its latest iPhone, called Siri, doesn’t work as advertised. Oh dear. What is more frustrating than technology that doesn’t quite do what it’s supposed to do?

The Apple iPhone Siri lawsuit, filed in the Northern District of California, brought by iPhone 4S customer Frank Fazio, states “Promptly after the purchase of his iPhone 4S, [Fazio] realized that Siri was not performing as advertised,” the lawsuit says. “For instance, when [Fazio] asked Siri for directions to a certain place, or to locate a store, Siri either did not understand what Plaintiff was asking, or after a very long wait time, responded with the wrong answer.” Consequently, Fazio believes that Apple has overpromised on Siri’s capabilities.

“Notwithstanding Apple’s extensive multi-million dollar advertising campaign showcasing the Siri feature, and the fact that the iPhone 4S is more expensive than the iPhone 4, the iPhone 4S’s Siri feature does not perform as advertised, rendering the iPhone 4S merely a more expensive iPhone 4,” the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit alleges that Apple is in violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law, is in breach of warranty, and has committed both intentional and negligent misrepresentation. The suit seeks class action for other iPhone 4S owners, with the end goal of an injunction against Apple selling the device, as well as damages.

Top Settlements

For all of you who were victim to some dodgy plumbing fixtures–Plumb-PEX plumbing system— you will no doubt have been relieved to hear this week that a proposed settlement has been reached in the Plumb-PEX class action lawsuit. In fact, a notification program has begun to inform people and entities who own or owned a home, building or other structure containing a Plumb-PEX plumbing system, about the proposed settlement in a defective products class action lawsuit.

The settlement aims to resolve claims about whether Radiant Technology, Inc. and Uponor, Inc. (“RTI” or the “Defendants”) sold Plumb-PEX plumbing systems containing ASTM standard F1807 brass insert fittings and stainless steel clamps that may leak and cause damage to property. The Defendants deny all of the claims in the lawsuit, but have agreed to settle the case to avoid the cost and uncertainty of a trial.

The settlement includes a group of people called a “Class” or “Class members” and consists of anyone who owns or owned a property containing an RTI Plumb-PEX plumbing system containing ASTM standard F1807 brass insert fittings and stainless steel clamps (“RTI Plumb-PEX Plumbing System”) installed on or after May 15, 1999. Owners of systems that have: (a) had a leak in one or more of the system’s components, or (b) a water flow differential of 50% between the hot and cold lines that supply one or more fixtures may receive benefits from the settlement. People and entities that paid for damages or repairs related to a qualifying leak in an RTI Plumb-PEX Plumbing System may also submit claims.

The settlement will reimburse Class members for property damage caused by a qualifying leak in a system component. It will also provide repairs or possibly the replacement of an RTI Plumb-PEX Plumbing System in structures that have had two or more qualifying leaks. Eligible Class members will have at least 18 months to file a claim even if that time period expires after their warranty.

More information, and there is more information –including how to access a claim form, a picture of the RTI Plumb-PEX Plumbing System components and the Settlement Agreement–can be found here.

Did you buy a bit of Blue Sky? –The soda that is. If so, you may be interested to know that a federal court in San Francisco has preliminarily approved a consumer fraud class action settlement that provides 50% cash refunds on purchases of Blue Sky brand beverages.

The settlement applies to purchasers in the United States of Blue Sky brand beverages between May 16, 2002 and June 30, 2006 (the “Class”). It excludes purchases by retailers, distributors, resellers, and the judge handling the case.

Class members can submit a claim for refund of fifty percent of the price they paid. Refunds are limited to $100 per household (if Proof of Purchase is submitted) or $6 per household (if no Proof of Purchase is submitted). Proof of Purchase means an itemized retail receipt that shows a purchase of a Blue Sky beverage, and the date, place and amount of purchase.

The Blue Sky settlement resolves a lawsuit against Monster Beverage Corporation (formerly known as Hansen Natural Corporation), Monster Energy Company (formerly known as Hansen Beverage Company) and Blue Sky Natural Beverage Co. (collectively, “Hansen”).

Class members also have the right to object to the settlement by filing papers in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, California (Chavez v Blue Sky Natural Beverage Co., et al., N.D. Cal. 06-cv-06609-JSW) and serving those papers on the attorneys for Plaintiff and Defendants. Those who object may ask to appear at the hearing or hire their own attorney to appear.

To get the whole story, find out if you’re eligible o to download a claim form see our full post on the Blue Sky settlement.

OK –That’s a wrap. Happy St. Patrick’s Day everyone—see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 3.9.12 (Kardashians, Google & Brazilian Blowout)

A weekly wrap of the latest class action lawsuits and settlements, for the week ending March 9, 2012.

Top Class Actions

Call it Kardashian Klass…as in Klass Action. So does QuickTrim equal QuickBucks? Maybe. Consumers of QuickTrim diet supplement products filed a consumer fraud class action this week against the Kardashian sisters, Kim, Kourtney and Khloe, as well as the product manufacturer, Windmill Health Products, over allegations that the advertising claims are false and misleading. Filed in New York, the Kardashian QuickTrim lawsuit alleges the sisters made “unsubstantiated, false and misleading claims” in ads, interviews and tweets about the effectiveness of QuickTrim. According to the lawsuit, the FDA recently evaluated the product’s principal ingredient which was found to be caffeine. The lawsuit states “The FDA has in fact determined that ‘there are inadequate data to establish the general recognition of the safety and effectiveness’ of caffeine for the specified use of weight control.”

The lawsuit also claims that advertising for QuickTrim encourages people to purchase and use the entire product range or system which includes pills and cleanses, in order to experience increased effectiveness, but there is no evidence supporting the effectiveness of the products or that the entire range of products are more effective when used together. Damn!

Is Internet Privacy an Oxymoron? It’s certainly looking more like a ‘yes’ these days. The latest group to be outraged over tracking cookies has filed a class action against master of the Internet universe—Google—alleging the god of all things binary inserted code into its Google Ads. Surprised?

The internet privacy lawsuit claims that Google installed tracking cookies on iPhones, iPads and Mac computers, which, the federal class action alleges, is in violation of the Federal Wiretap Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Stored Electronics Communications Act.

Apparently, the tracking cookies on the Apple products were installed in order to harvest information about Internet searches, which, of course, it does without the consumer’s knowledge or authorization.

The lead plaintiff in lawsuit further claims that Google intentionally intercepted these electronic communications and then intentionally disclosed that information to his and other class members’ detriment.

“Google admits that it used code designed to ascertain whether Apple Devices utilizing Safari were also signed into Google, and, as a result, tracking cookies could be and were placed on Safari web browser on Apple Devices,” the lawsuit states.

FYI—the lawsuit is looking for an award of actual damages, Google’s profits or the statutory minimum of $1,000 per person, punitive damages, plus coverage of all the usual costs.

Top Settlements

Brazilian Blowout Settlement…Ok ladies and gents, for all of you who have used the infamous hair straightener, Brazilian Blowout, and suffered some unexpected and unwanted side effects—like nosebleeds—you may be interested to know that a preliminary settlement has been reached in the class action against Brazilian Blowout. The manufacturer has agreed to pay $4.5 million in damages, with consumers harmed by the product tentatively scheduled to receive a $35 check for each treatment for a maximum of three, and $75 for each bottle of the product purchased.

The tentative Blowout settlement also reportedly stipulates that Brazilian Blowout can no longer claim to be “formaldehyde free”. In late January, the company agreed to warn consumers that its products may emit formaldehyde gas in a settlement requiring honest advertising over its products, according to California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris. And, the company must place “CAUTION” stickers on all its bottles to inform stylists of the need for precautionary measures, report the presence of formaldehyde in its products to the Safe Cosmetics Program at the Dept. of Public Health and fully disclose its refund policies to consumers before the products are purchased.

OK –That’s a wrap. Happy Friday everyone—see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 3.2.12 (DePuy Hip Impant, Skechers Toners, OC Register)

A weekly wrap of top class action lawsuits and lawsuit settlements for the week ending March 2, 2012.

Top Class Actions

Do you have—or know someone who has—a DePuy metal-on-metal hip replacement? You may be interested in this—a class action lawsuit—filed against DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., the manufacturer of metal-on-metal hip replacement implants. The lawsuit claims the devices cause “irreparable harm from undiagnosed metal disease.” And the purpose of the DePuy class action lawsuit is to get DePuy to pay for patients’ ongoing medical monitoring, which involves yearly orthopedic examinations, MRIs and blood and urine tests, according to the lawsuit.

Medical monitoring, you ask? Well, the science isn’t pretty, but the facts speak for themselves. According to an investigative report published in BMJ, formerly known as British Medical Journal, thousands of hip implants made by DePuy Orthopaedics have leaked high levels of toxic cobalt and chromium ions. These toxic metals have destroyed patients’ muscle and bone, and will potentially leave some patients with long-term disability, the study says.

“Metal-on-metal hip prostheses like the DePuy ASR XL can and do create three to five-fold increases in blood levels of the heavy metals chromium and cobalt,” the lawsuit states. “Toxicity from these metals causes metallosis, a disease that destroys the tissues surrounding the artificial joint. Left unresolved, metallosis creates irreparable harm to the patient from the progressive destruction of the joint tissues.”According to the court document, other health issues related to failure of the ASR XL hip implant include “immediate irreparable harm from undiagnosed metal disease and the effect it has on the joint, even after revision and on other targeted organs, such as the brain, heart, liver, and kidneys.”

Sadly, there’s more. In addition to risk of infection and blood clots in a second implant surgery, revisions will not last as long as the 20 to 30 years the original hip implants were expected to last.

The BMJ report cites longstanding “evidence of risk from metal-on-metal hips, the manufacturers’ inadequate response, and how regulatory bodies failed to give doctors and patients the information they need to make informed decisions.”

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned in 2011 about metal ions that shed minute particles of the metal implant that migrate into the bloodstream and damage bone or tissue surrounding the implant and joint.

BMJ quotes an internal DePuy memo from July 2005 that says, “In addition to inducing potential changes in immune function, there has been concern for some time that wear debris may be carcinogenic… One study suggested threefold risk of lymphoma and leukemia 10 years after joint replacement.”

“So-called ‘Silent Metal Disease,’ is found in upwards of 30% of patients with no symptoms. Cobalt and chromium poisoning can only be diagnosed promptly through a program of universal and comprehensive monitoring of the entire population of ASR XL patients,” according to the lawsuit.

BMJ says it’s likely there are more than 500,000 “at risk large diameter” metal-on-metal hips implanted in American patients since 2003 which require monitoring.

The lawsuit is asking that a class be certified and that DePuy be ordered to establish a fund to pay the costs of medical monitoring over the lifetime of all ASR XL Acetabular System hip implant patients. Those costs include annual blood and urine tests and medical imaging such as ultrasound and MRI examinations.

These shoes were made for walking–or not–according to this class action. This isn’t the first time we’ve seen complaints from consumers over reportedly false claims made by toning shoes manufacturers. This week, a consumer fraud class-action lawsuit was filed on behalf of consumers bought Skechers, alleging misleading advertising influenced people’s decision to buy the company’s “Shape-Ups” toning shoes.

The Skechers “Shape-Ups” toning sneaker class action lawsuit seeks money damages for consumers who paid a “premium price” for Skechers “Shape-Ups” based on TV, print and Internet ads that touted the toning shoes’ health benefits.

In reality, the complaint alleges, the shoes provide no additional health benefits. Instead, they pose a risk of injury due to their pronounced rocker bottom sole, according to the complaint.

The lawsuit seeks money damages and an order that would stop Skechers from “deceptive and unlawful advertising.”

According to the lawsuit, the shoes are marketed, sold and promoted by Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., and its subsidiaries.

The complaint states that Skechers is currently being investigated for its toning shoes marketing claims by the Federal Trade Commission. In September, the FTC reached a $25 million settlement with Reebok for making similar fitness claims about its own brand of toning shoes, the lawsuit states. Footwear News estimates that Skechers will face a fine of $75 million.

In particular, the lawsuit alleges that Skechers promoted that its “Shape-Ups” would provide health benefits “without setting foot in a gym.”

However, the plaintiffs claim, the company has produced no valid scientific proof that the toning shoes provide any greater benefit than regular athletic shoes.

The complaint cites an American Council on Exercise study that concluded, “There is simply no evidence to support the claims that these shoes will help wearers exercise more intensely, burn more calories or improve muscle strength and tone.”

However, the lawsuit alleges, the shoes do pose health risks. Because the rocker bottom soles create instability and change gait mechanics, they can trigger chronic injuries and cause wearers to fall and suffer injuries, the plaintiffs claim.

An attorney representing the plaintiffs notes a May 2011 Consumer Reports article stating that toning shoes had produced more injury reports than any other product in its database. The reported injuries included tendinitis and foot, leg and hip pain. The more severe reported injuries included broken bones. Looks like it’s back to the gym after all…

Top Settlements

Remember Mayberry RFD? “America’s Happiest Hamlet,” according to the trailer. Well, there’s something of that sentiment about this settlement. Maybe because the good guys won after all. Finally, after almost 10 years of litigation, a settlement in the Orange County Register unpaid wages class action lawsuit (Gonzalez, et al. v. Freedom Communications, Inc., et al., Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 03CC08756) has been reached.

In the settlement, the directors and officers of Freedom Communications, the parent of the OC Register, agreed to pay $15.5 million—in addition to an earlier $14.5 million paid in 2010—to resolve the paper carriers’ class action against the OC Register. The final $30 million settlement brings closure to litigation that had been ongoing for nearly a decade.

The California labor class action case was initially filed in the Orange County Superior Court in 2003 and then proceeded through the litigation process, culminating in seven weeks of jury trial before it was settled in January of 2009 for $38 million. While the plaintiff newspaper carriers won the battle, Freedom filed bankruptcy on September 1, 2009 and sought to eliminate this obligation through bankruptcy one week before the agreed payment date.

OK—Happy Friday everyone—See you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 2.24.12

The weekly wrap of top class action lawsuits and lawsuit settlements for the week ending February 24, 2012.

Top Class Actions

Hotels.com—too good to be true? Kaylen Silverberg thinks so. She filed a consumer fraud class action lawsuit this week against the online booking agency, alleging it does not back up its promise to refund money if hotel guests can find a better rate elsewhere online.

Instead, Silverberg’s lawsuit claims, Hotels.com sets an “arbitrary and undisclosed limit” on refunds.

Silverberg’s lawsuit states Hotels.com will not back up its promise: “‘after you book with Hotels.com, if you find a lower publicly available rate on line for the same dates, hotel, and room category, we will match the price and refund you the difference.'” Instead, the lawsuit states, “Hotels.com has an arbitrary and undisclosed policy to refund only a portion of the difference between its rate and other, lower rates. For example, in Silverberg’s case, Hotels.com stated that ‘we can only refund you $142,’ even though the price difference was substantially greater.”

Silverberg’s story, short version, is allegedly that she booked a room through Hotels.com for two nights in Rancho Palos Verdes, CA., for $355 per night, then found a $223 rate at HotelClub.com. A third website advertised an even lower rate, $213. Silverberg then asked Hotels.com to back up its guarantee but she was told by the company that they would refund her only $71 a night, which she calls “an arbitrary and undisclosed limit.”

The lawsuit seeks restitution and class damages for breach of contract and unjust enrichment—otherwise known as “business as usual.”

Top Settlements

Every so often a class action settlement comes along that results directly from very unfortunate circumstances. This is one such settlement. This week, Teva Pharmaceuticals, the maker of Propofol, announced it will settle 120 personal injury lawsuits arising from a hepatitis C outbreak in Southern Nevada. The amount of the Nevada Propofol settlement is a reported $285 million.

The Israeli-based generic drug maker was facing lawsuits brought by some 150 former patients of The Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada and its sister clinics, who contracted the disease after receiving propofol at the clinics. LAS reported on this in some detail at the time.

According to a report in the Las Vegas Review Journal, nine hepatitis C cases were found to be linked to the clinics which were run by Dr. Dipak Desai. Seven of the nine cases were genetically linked to the center. Health officials called another 106 cases “possibly linked.” According to health officials, more than 60,000 former clinic patients were potentially exposed to hepatitis C because of unsafe injection practices by nurse anesthetists at the clinics.

Teva lost the first three trials and was facing payments of nearly $800 million dollars in compensatory and punitive damages. The fourth trial was under way when settlement talks began in earnest. The settlement leaves 15 lawsuits unresolved.

Antennagate may be drawing to a close…if a preliminary settlement reached in a defective products class-action lawsuit against Apple is approved. The lawsuit alleges underperformance of its iPhone 4 resulting from antenna problems. And oh brother did we ever hear about it! While the iPhone 4 settlement per class member is certainly not large, by anyone’s measure—the size of the class certainly is—25 million US residents no less, each of whom could receive $15 in cash or a bumper case provided by Apple under the terms of the settlement. So, don’t be quitting your day job just yet.

The class action combined 18 separate lawsuits, all of which allege Apple was “misrepresenting and concealing material information in the marketing, advertising, sale, and servicing of its iPhone 4—particularly as it relates to the quality of the mobile phone antenna and reception and related software.”

As part of the iPhone 4 settlement original purchasers will be sent emails before April 30, 2012 alerting them to the settlement. The claims period is then open for 120 days.

OK—And it’s off to the bar we go. See you there!

Week Adjourned: 2.10.12

A weekly wrap up of the latest class action lawsuits and lawsuit settlements, for the week ending February 10, 2012

Top Class Actions

If you didn’t need Zantac before, you may need after reading this… Walgreens is facing a consumer fraud class action lawsuit over allegations the drugstore chain, in partnership with Par, a manufacturer of generic pharmaceuticals, marketed generic versions of antacid Zantac and antidepressant Prozac in dosage forms that weren’t subject to private and governmental reimbursement limitations. “As a result of this unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and other third-party payors paid two to four times more than they would have had the prescriptions been filled as written,” the lawsuit claims.

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) who filed the lawsuit, alleges in the Walgreens class action lawsuit that Walgreens and Par “engaged in at least two widespread schemes to overcharge insurance companies, self-insured employers and union health and welfare funds for the generic versions of Zantac, Prozac and other drugs.”

According to the lawsuit, “Walgreens purchased these dosage forms from Par—at a cost substantially higher than the widely prescribed dosage forms—and systematically and unlawfully filled its customers’ prescriptions with Par’s more expensive products, rather than the inexpensive dosage forms that were prescribed by physicians.”

Pharmacies cannot legally change a prescription without a physician’s express authorization; however, this class action lawsuit alleges Walgreens used expensive capsules manufactured by Par to fill prescriptions for the lower-priced tablets.

Top Settlements

For DES Daughters, Settled but not over… In a precedent-setting ruling, U.S. Magistrate Judge Marianne Bowler has this week ordered 14 pharmaceutical companies to negotiate compensation for 53 women who brought a DES class action lawsuit against the drug companies. The women alleged their breast cancer was caused by their mothers’ use of an anti-miscarriage drug, taken decades ago, called Diethylstilbestrol, also called Stilboestrol or DES.

DES was a synthetic hormone given to six million women worldwide between the 1940s and the early 1970s to prevent miscarriage. The drug was taken off the market when studies showed serious Diethylstilbestrol side effects, including a link between DES and vaginal cancer–as well as a link between DES and breast cancer, in women exposed to the medication while in the womb.

Bowler’s decision, which will have far reaching consequences, came following expert testimony from the scientific community including the Chair of Harvard’s Department of Epidemiology. The testimony included facts supporting the women’s claims that prenatal exposure to DES substantially increased risk for breast cancer among “DES Daughters” over the age of 40. The data came from information collected by the National Cancer Institute DES Follow-Up Study, and shows that DES daughters over the age of 40 are roughly twice as likely to develop breast cancer as their counterparts who were not exposed to the drug in-utero.

Manufacturers of DES include Eli Lilly and Company and E. R. Squibbs & Sons, the predecessor to Bristol-Myers Squibb. According to data from the Centers for Disease Control an estimated 10 million women in the United States have been exposed to DES—including DES mothers, DES daughters, DES sons and DES grandchildren. Attorney’s representing the plaintiffs expect there may be many more women affected by DES who will come forward as a result of this ruling.

Now it’s time for JP Morgan Chase to write a check…as they have tentatively agreed to pay $110 million to settle an overdraft fees class-action lawsuit filed by customers who allege the bank charged excessive checking overdraft fees.

The lawsuit, filed in 2009 by Andrea Luquetta of Los Angeles, claimed JPMorgan engaged in “unfair, deceptive and unconscionable” assessment and collection of overdraft fees. Her complaint also refers to the practices of Washington Mutual, which JPMorgan bought in 2008.

Specifically, the lawsuit claimed that JP Morgan Chase processed its debit card transactions unfairly so it could maximize the overdraft fees customers paid, which, according to the lawsuit, was typically between $25 and $35 per overdraft. The lawsuit remains to be approved in court, and details of the settlement terms haven’t been made readily available yet, so watch this space for updates.

OK—they’re buying—that’s a wrap for this week. See you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 2.3.12

A wrap up of the week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements, for the week ending February 3, 2012

Top Class Actions

Write this one up…The Hearst Corporation got hit with an employment lawsuit this week.

The Hearst lawsuit claims that the publishing giant illegally employs hundreds of unpaid interns in violation of federal and state labor laws, according to a newly filed employment class action complaint. Specifically, the lawsuit, filed on behalf of a former Harper’s Bazaar intern—Xuedan Wang, of Brooklyn, N.Y., accuses Hearst of paying interns no compensation for the work they perform, including minimum or overtime wages, and committing recordkeeping violations in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Wang alleges that she regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, and sometimes as many as 55 hours per week (had she not seen “The Devil Wears Prada“?) , without compensation while at Harper’s Bazaar in 2011.

Lawyers representing the plaintiff state that unpaid interns are becoming the modern-day equivalent of entry-level employees, except that employers are not paying them for the many hours they work. The practice of classifying employees as ‘interns’ to avoid paying wages runs afoul of federal and state wage and hour laws. (Btw, if this sounds familiar, it is—we reported on the Black Swan movie production unpaid interns complaint a while back.)

The lawsuit seeks class action certification to recover unpaid wages, overtime pay, liquidated damages, interest and attorneys’ fees for unpaid interns who worked for Hearst between February 1, 2006 and the date of a final judgment. So, it’s been going on for a while.

Time to Foreclose on Dodgy Foreclosures. At least that’s what 16 Nevadans and fellow potential class members are aiming for. They filed a foreclosure class action lawsuit against five companies hired by banks and lenders to handle the foreclosures on properties owned by the plaintiffs and against one additional defendant who purchased property through the foreclosure process. The case was filed as a class action lawsuit because it is estimated that there are thousands of potential plaintiffs who were victims of these foreclosure companies.

The defendants named in the Nevada foreclosure class action lawsuit are: Quality Loan Service Corporation; Appleton Properties, LLC; MTC Financial, Inc. dba Trustee Corps; Meridian Foreclosure Service dba MTDS, Inc. dba Meridian Trust Deed Service; National Default Servicing Corporation; and California Reconveyance Company. Ringing any bells?

The specific allegations include illegal debt collection activities and deceptive trade practices by the defendants against the plaintiffs during the foreclosure process as the defendants were not licensed or registered in the State of Nevada to carry out the foreclosure process.

The plaintiffs are Nevadans who not only lost their houses in one of the hardest hit real estate markets, but were also adversely affected by foreclosure companies that did not follow the law during the foreclosure process.

The lawsuit alleges that the debt collection activities of the defendants are and/or were illegal and improper because each of the defendants did not hold a license to engage in debt collection activities in the State of Nevada and each also failed to register as a foreign debt collection agency with the Nevada Financial Institutions Division.

The illegal and improper debt collection activities include the issuance of debt-related notices, demands, collection communications and/or foreclosure sales and processes. In addition, the plaintiffs also claim deceptive trade practices, consumer fraud, unjust enrichment, trespass, quiet title and in two instances, elder abuse.

Plaintiffs are asking for compensatory and consequential damages in excess to $10,000, disgorgement of any amounts paid to defendants for their respective illegal and improper debt collection activities, attorney’s fees and injunctive relief.

Go get’em and good luck!

Top Settlements

$200M Motorola Proposed Settlement. A $200 million settlement has been reached with Motorola Solutions Inc, bringing to an end a securities lawsuit filed in 2007 by company shareholders. Motorola has denied any wrongdoing.

The securities lawsuit alleged the electronics manufacturer had artificially inflated its stock by making misrepresentations about the company’s projected revenues for the third and fourth quarters of 2006.

Lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Macomb County Employees’ Retirement System and St. Clair Shores Police and Fire Pension System.

Lawyers representing all plaintiffs said the settlement represents an extraordinary recovery for investors in a case where there was no financial restatement or (Securities and Exchange Commission) investigation.

If you were a Motorola shareholder between July 19, 2006, and January 4, 2007, you may be eligible for a recovery.

According to the terms of the Motorola proposed settlement, the plaintiffs’ attorneys are seeking fees of 27.5 percent of the settlement, or $55 million, and expenses of up to $4.95 million.

OK—they’re buying—that’s a wrap for this week. See you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 1.27.12

A weekly wrap up of top class action lawsuits and lawsuit settlements for the week ending January 27,2012.

Top Class Actions

Ex Pro Football Players go head to head with NFL Over Concussions. Yup—that’s right. The NFL is facing a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of all former NFL players, including seven named players and four spouses over concussion and related health effects.

The named players include former Philadelphia Eagles Ron Solt, Joe Panos, and Rich Miano. The lawsuit charges that the NFL and other defendants intentionally and fraudulently misrepresented and/or concealed medical evidence about the short- and long-term risks regarding repetitive traumatic brain injury and concussions and failed to warn players that they risked permanent brain damage if they returned to play too soon after sustaining a concussion.

Ron Solt, age 50, was an all-star guard for the Eagles from 1988 to 1991 and also played for the Indianapolis Colts, playing 10 seasons in all from 1984 to 1993. He suffered at least one concussion during an NFL game while with the Eagles, as well as multiple head traumas and concussions during practice that were never medically diagnosed. He now suffers from substantial memory loss and persistent ringing in his ears.

Joe Panos, age 41, played as an offensive lineman in the NFL from 1994 to 2000 and was with the Eagles from 1994 to 1997. He sustained concussions while with the Eagles and Buffalo Bills. He currently experiences headaches, memory loss, irritability, rage, mood swings, and sleeplessness.

Rich Miano, age 49, played as a defensive back for 10 seasons in the NFL between 1985 and 1995 and was with the Eagles from 1991 to 1994. He is now associate head coach of the University of Hawaii football team. He sustained at least one concussion while playing but is currently asymptomatic.

Gennaro DiNapoli, age 36, was an NFL center and guard from 1998 to 2004 who sustained repeated head impacts during his NFL career. He suffers from severe depression, memory loss, headaches, anxiety and mood swings.

Adam Haayer, age 34, was an offensive lineman from 2001 to 2006 for four teams. He had at least four concussions or concussion-like symptoms and deals with memory loss, depression, and anxiety. Daniel Buenning, age 30, played as an offensive lineman in the NFL for four seasons from 2005 to 2008. He suffers from substantial memory loss, depression, trouble with concentration, short attention span, and mood swings.

Craig Heimburger, age 34, played on the offensive line for four teams between 1999 and 2002. He sustained multiple head impacts and concussions and suffers from dizziness, memory loss, and intense headaches.

Also named in the complaints were the wives of several players including Lori Miano, Summer Haayer, Ashley Buenning and Dawn Heimburger.

Lawyers representing the plaintiffs said this action is necessary because the NFL knew about the debilitating and permanent effects of head injuries and concussions that regularly occur among professional players, yet ignored and actively concealed the risks.

The lawsuit charges that the NFL voluntarily joined the scientific research as well as public and private discussions regarding the relationship between concussions and brain impairment when it created the Mild Traumatic Brain Injury (MTBI) Committee in 1994. Rather than naming a noted neurologist to chair this committee, it appointed Dr. Elliott Pellman, a rheumatologist who was a paid physician and trainer for the New York Jets, a conflict of interest, and had training in the treatment of joints and muscles, not head injuries. While the committee was established with the stated purpose of researching and lessening the impact of concussions on NFL players, it failed to inform them of the true risks associated with head trauma.

Although athletes who suffered brain trauma in other professional sports were restricted from playing full games or even seasons, NFL players with similar head injuries were regularly returned to play with devastating consequences.

The lawsuit seeks medical monitoring, compensation, and financial recovery for the short-term, long-term, and chronic injuries, financial and intangible losses, and expenses for the individual former and present NFL players and their spouses.

What can I say—it’s a wake-up call a long time in the making.

Top Settlements

Wonder if Payless texted this piece of news…A proposed settlement (the “Settlement Agreement”) has been reached in the class action lawsuit against Payless ShoeSource, Inc. (“Payless” or “Defendant”). You may be a Member of the Settlement Class and might be eligible to receive a merchandise certificate worth up to $25 if you are a person who received one or more text messages promoting Payless products between October 29, 2005 and October 4, 2010. If you are a Settlement Class Member and the Court gives final approval to the Settlement Agreement:

You may be entitled to receive a $25 merchandise certificate (a “Settlement Payment”) or a lesser pro rata amount if the total of all claims exceeds $6,000,000.

If you are a Settlement Class Member and would like to receive your Settlement Payment, you must submit a Claim Form, either through the mail or by filling out a claim form on the claims administrator’s website. You will be giving up legal claims against Defendant and other related entities. Your claim must be submitted or postmarked no later than February 6, 2012. To find out more about the terms of the settlement and how to qualify or be excluded—visit paylesstextsettlement.com.

One could argue this lawsuit went into overtime… but it looks like a happy ending… for the employees that is. An announcement this week—that Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (NPC) has agreed to pay $99 million to settle a nationwide wage and hour class action brought by 7000 Novartis sales reps who allege NPC reps weren’t paid overtime.

The case has been working its way through the courts since 2006, and stems from claims that the sales reps don’t qualify as “outside sales” employees which would make them exempt from overtime pay. This issue has been the source of several wage and hour class actions brought by pharma sales reps from different companies who have alleged that Fair Labor Standards Act exemptions don’t apply to them.

Ok—That’s a wrap for this week. See you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 1.21.12

A weekly wrap up of top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending January 21, 2012

Top Class Actions

Holy HELOC Batman—It’s been certified! A class action lawsuit brought by a couple in Cupertino in 2009—and which has been through 4 attempts to get certified—finally got the nod from a federal court judge this past week. And this one could affect many people.

The back story—Washington Mutual and JPMorgan Chase (Chase has since acquired WaMu) allegedly reduced credit limits on Jeffrey and Jenifer Schulken’s home equity line of credit (HELOC) without valid reasons.

Specifically, the HELOC class action lawsuit alleges violations of the Truth in Lending Act violations and unfair competition among other claims. The Cupertino couple allege they were informed by Chase, by letter, that their home equity credit lines would be suspended because they did not have enough monthly income to satisfy their debts. The Schulken’s allege that the monthly income of $11,200 that Chase claimed the couple stated on their applications, was inaccurate, that they had never “provided such an inflated income figure to WaMu, and that if the Schulkens’ file indicated such an income, then WaMu had intentionally misrepresented their income.”

After four attempts by Chase to have the complaint dismissed, two classes have now been certified: the “inability to verify” class, and a subclass of borrowers whose credit lines were suspended because Chase could not verify their financial circumstances.

The plaintiffs’ class definition to include “only those members who signed contracts that (1) arise from heritage WaMu customers, and (2) state that the borrower must provide, upon the lender’s request, ‘a current financial statement, new credit application, or both.'”

Top Settlements

Couple of big pharma settlements announced this week…

At the top of the hit parade we have Johnson & Johnson (J&J). They have reportedly agreed to pay $158 million to settle a lawsuit in Texas that alleges the company defrauded the state by misleading doctors about its antipsychotic drug Risperdal.

The deal will put an end to claims that J&J marketed Risperdal off label—for unapproved uses—and downplayed health risks associated with the drug. Texas had originally sought at least $579 million in damages. Well, shoot for the stars—isn’t that how the saying goes?

Bloomberg reported that the settlement follows some rather incriminating testimony given in court last week. Testimony that included an expert eye witness stating that J&J hid data showing Risperdal could cause weight gain that could lead to diabetes. According to Bloomberg “the witness also alleged that J&J had key study [ Study 113] results several years before it added warnings about weight gain to the drug’s label.”

Bloomberg notes in its report that J&J’s unpublished studies—ah—yes—more than one—were cited in a South Carolina case that brought a $327 million judgment against the pharmaceutical manufacturer. “It is apparent to this court that this information was not disclosed because if did not fit the marketing department’s vision for the promotion and marketing of this drug,” Judge Roger Couch wrote in a ruling (as quoted by Bloomberg). Amen to that.

And singing from a similar song sheet—we have Merck. It was announced this week that they have agreed to pay up to $37 million to settle a Canadian Vioxx class action lawsuit. Included in the settlement is $10 million for costs and fees. Plaintiffs’ lawyer said up to 2,000 Canadians may be eligible for compensation.

FYI—Vioxx (Rofecoxib) was on the market from 1999 to 2004, prescribed to patients as a pain-reliever for arthritis, osteoarthritis, menstrual pain, and other acute pain. Vioxx was recalled and pulled off the market when it was linked to deadly side effects heart attack, stroke, kidney damage, and arrythmia. This led to billions of dollars’ worth of litigation, including a $4.85 billion settlement that covers most of the U.S. plaintiffs.

Ok—That’s a wrap for this week. See you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 1.13.12

A wrap up of the week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements, for the week ending January 13, 2012.

Top Class Actions

Diagnosis: Discrimination? Following in the footsteps of the Novartis and Merck suits, one has to wonder if discrimination is standard practice in this industry…

A $100 million gender discrimination employment class action lawsuit has been filed against Quest Diagnostics Inc., and AmeriPath, Inc., (collectively known as “Quest”) in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The complaint details the systemic discriminatory treatment of female sales representatives company-wide by the self-proclaimed “world leader in diagnostic testing, information and services.”

Indiana resident Erin Beery and Florida resident Heather Traeger, both of them current Quest employees in the AmeriPath division, filed the lawsuit on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly-situated sales reps employed from February 17, 2010 to the present. Beery is an Executive Territory Manager in Quest’s Anatomical Pathology Sales Division in Indianapolis; Traeger is Senior Executive Territory Manager in the Anatomical Pathology Sales Division in Bradenton.

The complaint details a wide range of discriminatory practices in the selection, promotion and advancement of sales reps at Quest Diagnostics and AmeriPath, including discrimination on the basis of pregnancy and caretaking responsibilities in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other federal statutes.

In addition, both of the named plaintiffs in the case have individual claims of disparate pay, differential treatment, gender hostility, the creation of a hostile work environment and retaliation in the workplace affecting them in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other federal statutes.

According to Beery and Traeger, high ranking company officials within Quest’s predominately-male management team foster an environment detrimental to the success and advancement of female employees. They describe “old boys’ club” attitudes that pervade the enterprise, including forcing women to work under less favorable circumstances than their male counterparts and denying them the educational and job advancement opportunities afforded men in similar positions.

The complaint asserts that Quest’s policies do not provide sufficient oversight or safety measures to protect women from intentional and overt discrimination of even facially-neutral policies, so that female employees discriminated against have no recourse within the company. It cites an absence of internal incentives or disciplinary measures to ensure company executives and managers comply with company discrimination policies and equal employment laws.

The lawsuit also asserts that a significant number of the women who work for Quest have been and are affected by the same discriminatory employment policies, practices and procedures to which Beery and Traeger were subjected, justifying the certification of the class.

Scanning Scam? And now for our weekly consumer fraud lawsuit. This one was filed against Symantec Corp alleging the software manufacturer attempts to convince consumers to buy its products by providing misleading information about the functionality of their computers.

Filed by James Gross, of Washington state, the lawsuit claims that Symantec distributes trial versions of its products that scan a consumer’s system, then report that harmful errors, privacy risks and other problems exists on the PC, regardless of the actual operating status of the computer.

The lawsuit also claims that Symantec uses that scanning software to market Norton Utilities, PC Tools Registry Mechanic and PC Tools Performance Toolkit software. Norton Utilities and PC Tools are products that Symantec claims help improve the performance of personal computers and keep online activities private. The lawsuit claims that Norton Utilities and PC Tools are forms of “scareware,” a common type of malicious software that causes pop-up messages to appear on computers telling users that they are infected with a virus.

“The truth, however, is that the scareware does not actually perform any meaningful evaluation of the user’s computer system, or of the supposed ‘errors’ detected by the software,” the complaint claims. What scareware does do, in my experience, is suck up your time and send your stress levels through the roof—like you’ve got nothing better to do!

“The scareware does not, and cannot, actually perform the valuable tasks represented by Symantec through its websites, advertising, and in-software display screens.” No comment.

Lawyers representing the plaintiffs state that the software is falsely informing the consumer that errors are high priority and in addition it is falsely informing the consumer that their overall system health and privacy health is low. Symantec makes Norton 360, Norton Internet Security and Norton AntiVirus software.

Top Settlement

Nationwide Insurance Settlement. Well, it’s a start. This week, a federal court preliminarily approved a settlement with Nationwide Insurance that resolves allegations brought in a federal class action lawsuit, that the insurer improperly reduced or denied insurance benefits to residents in Delaware. Nice.

What’s the beef? The lawsuit claims that Nationwide improperly reduced or denied insurance benefits for medical services after submitting medical bills to a computer-based bill review audit. Specifically, the lawsuit challenges reductions in payment for those services based upon a reasonableness or usual and customary charge bill review administered by Mitchell Medical. Among other things, the lawsuit challenges Nationwide’s right to conduct such bill review under the applicable policies, the disclosure that such bill review would be conducted, and the manner in which the bill review was conducted. Nationwide denies any wrongdoing, and contends that review of medical bill pricing protects against excessive charges and helps to preserve insurance benefits.

Here’s the skinny on qualifying: “You are a member of the “Settlement Class” and a “Settlement Class Member” covered by the settlement if you fall within the following class definition adopted by the Court:

All persons, and their medical providers or other assignees, who (a) submitted first-party medical expense claims to Nationwide pursuant to Nationwide’s Delaware automobile insurance policy No-Fault coverage; (b) had their claim submitted by Nationwide to computer pricing review during the period from September 1, 2004 through December 31, 2007; (c) received or were tendered payment but in an amount less than the submitted medical charges based upon the pricing review of the charges; and (d) received or were tendered an amount less than the stated policy limits.”

You can find out more about the Nationwide insurance settlement here.

Ok – That’s a wrap for this week. See you at the bar!