Consumer Fraud

Week Adjourned: 11.2.12 – OTC Medicine, Bayer Aspirin, Burger King

This week’s wrap of top class action lawsuit news includes OTC Medicine expiration dates, Bayer Aspirin, and Burger King discrimination–the top class actions for the week ending November 2, 2012.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

What’s in an Expiration Date? According to three separate consumer fraud class action lawsuits filed this week, a whole lot of questionable motivation.

Filed against Pfizer (which makes Advil), Bayer (which makes Bayer aspirin) and Johnson & Johnson (which makes Tylenol Cold Multi-Symptom medications), the drug expiration date lawsuits allege the drug makers use “unconscionable, unfair, deceptive, unethical and illegal” means to promote the sales of their products. Specifically, the lawsuits claim that the these means involve the utilization of expiration dates to get consumers to throw away products that have passed their expiration dates, even though the companies know “that if stored properly these medications can and do remain chemically stable, safe and effective long after those dates.”

According to the consumer fraud lawsuits, studies by the Food and Drug Administration, Harvard Medical School, and Johns Hopkins University have found 90% of more than 100 prescription and over-the-counter drugs were fine and could be used for as much as 15 years after their expiration dates: this excludes certain drugs like tetracycline, nitroglycerin, insulin, and liquid antibiotics.

The lawsuit claims that the purpose of the expiration dates is “[T]o increase defendants’ sales and profits because consumers have to purchase replacement medications for those they have thrown out.” The class is seeking actual and punitive damages for consumers that purchased products from Pfizer, Bayer and Johnson & Johnson.

Top Settlements

And Speaking of Drug Marketing… A $15 million settlement has been reached in the consumer fraud class action against Bayer regarding allegations of false advertising around certain combination aspirin products that were sold without FDA approval.

The lawsuit, entitled In re: Bayer Corp. Combination Aspirin Products Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation, alleges Bayer violated state consumer fraud and deceptive business practices acts, express and implied warranty statutes, and unjust enrichment laws in connection with the sale and marketing of Bayer Women’s Low-Dose Aspirin plus Calcium and Bayer Aspirin with Heart Advantage.

If you purchased Bayer® Women’s Low Dose Aspirin + Calcium or Bayer® Aspirin with Heart Advantage, you may be a member of the Bayer Heart Advantage Class or the Bayer Women’s Class (collectively referred to as the “Settlement Classes”) – and thus eligible to receive money from the settlement – depending on (1) which Combination Aspirin Product you purchased, (2) whether you purchased it for personal, family or household uses, and (3) when it was purchased. Each Settlement Class only includes purchases of specific Combination Aspirin Products during specific periods of time.

If you purchased one or more of the Combination Aspirin Products for personal, family or household uses then you are eligible to participate in one or both of the Settlement Classes described in this Notice, provided that your purchase occurred during the time periods specified for each Settlement Class.

Class Members of the Bayer combination aspirin class action settlement include US consumers who purchased one or more of the following combination aspirin products for personal, family or household use during the following time period:

Bayer Aspirin with Heart Advantage Settlement Class: Purchase Date: January 1, 2008 to July 20, 2012

Bayer Women’s Low-Dose Aspirin plus Calcium Settlement Class: Purchase Date: January 1, 2000 to July 20, 2012

To learn more about making a claim and to download forms go to the Bayer Combination Aspirin Class Action Lawsuit Settlement at BayerCombinationAspirinSettlement.com.

Convenience Food not so Convenient… A proposed settlement has been reached in a discrimination class action lawsuit pending against Burger King. The lawsuit, brought by individuals who use wheelchairs and scooters for mobility, allege that they encountered access problems at certain California Burger King leased restaurants.

Specifically, the Burger King class action lawsuit alleges individuals who use wheelchairs and scooters for mobility have been subjected to discrimination at the restaurants that allegedly contain unlawful architectural barriers to access. The Burger King ADA lawsuit sought to remove the alleged barriers, and monetary damages for Class Members denied access to restaurants on or after October 16, 2006.

The proposed settlement terms includes a total of $19 million for monetary relief, which will provide an estimated average recovery per class member of over $8,200, after deductions for attorney’s fees and costs.

Burger King Corporation and the restaurant operators deny they did anything wrong. The parties have reached a settlement of this case. It is now up to the Court approve the proposed settlement.

To find out more and to obtain claim forms for the Burger King wheelchair class action, call 1-888-569-9477.

And on that note—I’ll see you at the bar. Have a great weekend!

Week Adjourned: 10.26.12 – Avon, Nurses & Aides, LoJack, Morgan Keegan

The weekly wrap on top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week of October 26, 2012. Highlights include Avon’s Anew line, Maxim Healthcare worker unpaid overtime, LoJack wage and hour settlement and Morgan Keegan proposed securities fraud settlement.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Company for Women? Not for this woman—and many others sure to be in her ‘class’. Avon Inc., the cosmetics company of door-to-door fame, is facing a potential consumer fraud class action lawsuit over anti-aging claims of its Anew skin care line. The Avon Anew class action includes such would-be miracle creams as Anew Clinical Advanced Wrinkle Corrector, Anew Reversalist Night Renewal Cream, Anew Reversalist Renewal Serum and Anew Clinical Thermafirm Face Lifting Cream products.

And the woman who’s at the lead of all this? That would be Lorena Trujillo, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, who alleges Avon earned “handsome profits” by misleading consumers into believing Anew anti-aging products can boost collagen production, recreate fresh skin and fortify damaged tissue, offering “at-home answers” to “procedures found in a dermatologist’s office.” Tall order, for sure, but hey—who wouldn’t want to believe it?

Earlier this month, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning to Avon regarding these anti-aging products, indicating that they have been misrepresented to consumers. In the warning, the FDA demanded that Avon revise certain advertising claims about the products, including the suggestion that they can change the structure or function of the body (hello, collagen production?) which would classify them as drugs under FDA regulations and require FDA approval. Therefore, Avon’s Anew anti-aging products “are not generally recognized among qualified experts as safe and effective,” the FDA said.

The Avon Anew class action lawsuit seeks to represent all U.S. consumers who purchased Anew Clinical Advanced Wrinkle Corrector, Anew Reversalist Night Renewal Cream, Anew Reversalist Renewal Serum and Anew Clinical Thermafirm Face Lifting Cream products based on Avon’s allegedly misleading advertising claims about these products.

The Lawsuit is Lorena Trujillo v. Avon Products, Inc., Case No. 12-9084, California Central District Court. Trujillo is represented by the law firm Baron & Budd.

Unpaid Overtime in Overtime Already! An overtime class action lawsuit has been filed against Maxim Healthcare Services Inc, by Jasmine Lawrence, who was employed as a Home Health Aide by the defendant until October 2012.

In the Maxim Healthcare class action lawsuit, Lawrence alleges that Maxim Healthcare Services Inc, violated, and continues to violate, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act (OMFWSA) because of its willful failure to compensate her and the class members at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for work performed in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Lawrence claims she regularly worked over 70 hours per week while employed by Maxim Healthcare and the majority of her time was spent performing general housekeeping duties as opposed to patient care.

Lawrence also alleges that she and the members of the putative class who are employed by the Defendant in Ohio are “employees” within the meaning of the OMFWSA.

Lawrence, the lead plaintiff in the employment class action, seeks to bring her claim for violation of the Fair labor Standards Act (FLSA) as a nation-wide collective action, and as a statewide class action based for violation of the OMFWSA.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc, is a Maryland corporation which, through hundreds of office locations nationwide, provides in-home personal care, management and/or treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides. Lawrence and the class are represented by Ben Stewart of Stewart Law PLLC.

Top Settlements

Time to Pay Up–Finally. LoJack agreed a class action settlement agreement this week, ending, hopefully, two California wage-and-hour class action lawsuits. The LoJack settlement, which is subject to final approval, stipulates that LoJack will pay up to $8.1 million, including plaintiffs’ attorneys’ potential fees and costs, to resolve all remaining California state class action claims.

As previously disclosed, in the related California federal wage-and-hour case, the Company paid the class action plaintiffs $115,000 in 2011 to settle the federal claims. During 2011, the Company also recorded a $1.1 million accrual with respect to plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fee application in the federal case. In early August 2012, the federal court awarded plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs of $900,518 related to those claims. Although the Company filed a notice of appeal with respect to the attorneys’ fee award in the federal case, the Company has agreed to waive that appeal as part of this settlement.

The LoJack settlement agreement involves no admission of wrongdoing, liability or violation of the law by the Company. In addition, the agreement bars the named plaintiffs in the California state class action from pursuing further claims against the Company.

The Company expects the Court to issue a decision shortly regarding preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. Should the Court grant preliminary approval, California class members would be sent a notice of the settlement and given the opportunity to decide whether to participate. LoJack could pay less than $8.1 million in settlement of the state court case depending on the level of participation by class members in the settlement. Following the notice period, the parties may move for final approval of the settlement. LoJack anticipates that the Court would be in a position to rule on final approval of the proposed settlement by the first or second quarter of 2013. LoJack does not anticipate paying any portion of the settlement of the California state case until the Court has granted final approval.

And this Round’s on Them! Morgan Keegan & Co. Inc. has agreed to pay $62 million as part of a preliminary settlement of a securities class action involving more than 10,000 nationwide clients. The Commercial Appeal has reported the terms of the settlement won’t force the investment firm to admit any wrongdoing resulting from the 2008 meltdown of its mutual funds. Of course. Accidents happen…we all know that.

The lead plaintiff in this class action lawsuit is a Texas hedge fund which claimed a $2.1 million investment in Morgan Keegan’s closed-end mutual funds.

The Morgan Keegan settlement remains to be approved by a federal judge, and if approved, will leave one more class action outstanding against the investment firm, this one related to conventional mutual funds.

And on that note—I’ll see you at the bar. Have a great weekend!

Week Adjourned: 10.19.12 – Healthcare Workers, Madden NFL, Chantix

The weekly wrap on top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending October 19, 2012. This week’s top stories include Healthcare workers at Maxim Healthcare, Electronic Arts and NFL Madden games and the first Chantix settlement.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Overworked and Underpaid on Overtime. An overtime class action lawsuit has been filed against Maxim Healthcare Services Inc, by Jas

mine Lawrence, who was employed as a Home Health Aide by the defendant until October 2012.

In the unpaid overtime lawsuit, Lawrence alleges that Maxim Healthcare Services Inc, violated, and continues to violate, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act (OMFWSA) because of its willful failure to compensate her and the class members at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for work performed in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Lawrence claims she regularly worked over 70 hours per week while employed by Maxim Healthcare and the majority of her time was spent performing general housekeeping duties as opposed to patient care.

Lawrence also alleges that she and the members of the putative class who are employed by the Defendant in Ohio are “employees” within the meaning of the OMFWSA.

Lawrence, the lead plaintiff in the employment class action, seeks to bring her claim for violation of the Fair labor Standards Act (FLSA) as a nation-wide collective action, and as a statewide class action based for violation of the OMFWSA.

Top Settlements

And it’s a Touchdown! The Plaintiffs score a proposed $27 million settlement that’s been reached in a class action lawsuit pending against Electronic Arts. The Electronic Arts settlement, if approved, will apply to anyone who purchased a new copy of an EA Madden NFL, NCAA Football or Arena Football video game between 2005 and 2012 and is an eligible class member.

The backstory—in case you missed it—The Electronic Arts video game antitrust lawsuit was filed in 2008 entitled Pecover v. Electronic Arts, Inc., and alleged that EA violated antitrust and consumer protection lawsuits by holding exclusive license agreements with the NFL, NCAA and AFL to market branded football software. The lawsuit further alleged that the arrangement shut out competitors, enabling EA to charge 70 percent more for “Madden NFL.”

And the skinny on the proposed deal: Class Members of the EA football game class action settlement include all U.S. consumers who bought a new copy of an Electronic Arts’ Madden NFL, NCAA Football, or Arena Football video game for Xbox, Xbox 360, PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3, GameCube, PC, or Wii, with a release date of January 1, 2005 to June 21, 2012.

If approved by the court at the February 7, 2013 Final Fairness Hearing, Settlement Class Members who submit timely and valid claim forms will receive the following CASH benefits:

If you are an eligible Settlement Class Member, your share of the net proceeds of the Settlement will be based upon the number of video game titles you purchased new, as well as the number of Settlement Class Members who submit valid claims.

Valid claims for the purchase of Madden NFL, NCAA Football, or Arena Football video games for the Xbox, PlayStation 2, PC, or GameCube platforms (“Sixth Generation Purchasers”) will be valued at $6.79 per new game purchased, up to a total of eight units ($54.32).

Valid claims for the purchase of Madden NFL, NCAA Football, or Arena Football video games for the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, or Wii platforms (“Seventh Generation Purchasers”) will be valued at $1.95 per new game purchased, up to a total of eight units ($15.60).

The only way to receive cash benefits from the EA antitrust settlement is to submit a Claim Form either online at EASportsLitigation.com or postmarked no later than March 5, 2013.

Let’s hope this settlement levels the playing field…

Here’s a Bittersweet Ending… A settlement has been reached in a lawsuit against Pfizer and its anti-smoking drug Chantix. The Pfizer Chantix settlement, the details of which remain confidential, was reached just prior to the case going to trial.

The lawsuit was brought by the widow of Mark Alan Whitely, from Minnesota, who allegedly killed himself in November 2007 as a result of taking the controversial drug. The lawsuit alleged that Pfizer failed to sufficiently warn that Chantix could increase the risk of suicide.

FYI—in July 2009, the FDA announced an update to Chantix (known generically as varenicline) warnings, alerting patients to the risk of serious mental health events linked to use of the smoking cessation drug. Pfizer, maker of Chantix, was required to put a Boxed Warning on the Chantix label, highlighting the risk of depressed mood, hostility and suicidal thoughts when using the medication. When the FDA made its announcement in 2009, it had received 98 crude reports of completed suicide associated with Chantix (a crude report means the FDA had not examined each report in depth to ensure there were no duplicates). It had a further 188 crude reports of suicide attempts.

The Whitely lawsuit is reportedly the first of some 2,500 Chantix cases that have been combined in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in Alabama for pretrial evidence-gathering and the first trials.

The consolidated cases are In re Chantix (Varenicline) Products Liability Litigation MDL 2092, 09-cv-2039 U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama (Florence). The consolidated cases are In re Chantix (Varenicline) Products Liability Litigation MDL 2092, 09-cv-2039 U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama (Florence).

And on that note—I’ll see you at the bar. Have a great weekend!

Week Adjourned: 9.28.12 – Maybelline, Coppertone, Sallie Mae Student Loans

The class action lawsuit and settlement wrap for the week ending September 28, 2012. Top stories include Maybelline, Coppertone and Sallie Mae.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

A Sticky Situation? (ok— that’s bad—I know). Maybelline is the latest company to face a consumer fraud class action lawsuit. This one alleges the company’s “Super Stay” lipstick and lip gloss don’t last as long as promised. The Maybelline lawsuit accuses L’Oreal SA, the parent company of Maybelline, of falsely advertising the staying power of both products, which sell for about $9 each.

The lawsuit, filed by Carol Leebove, Wanda Santa and Denise Santiago, claims L’Oreal and Maybelline make “misleading, inaccurate and deceptive” advertising claims regarding its “Super Stay 14HR Lipstick” and “Super Stay 10HR Stain Gloss.”

The women claim that while the products are advertised as having “super staying power” that “won’t fade,” that’s not been their experience with the products. According to the lawsuit, “the Super Stay products do not remain on the wearer’s lips for the extended periods as advertised” and “wear off and fade after only a few hours of wear.” One of the Plaintiffs claims the so-called long-lasting lipstick wears off as soon as she eats a meal or has a drink. So, we’ll see if this lawsuit has staying power… as the class has yet to be certified.

Top Settlements

The Proof wasn’t in the Lotion? Merck’s in the news again this week, this time with a settlement of a consumer fraud class action lawsuit over advertising claims made by its Coppertone franchise. The preliminary Coppertone settlement involves Merck ponying up between $3 million and $10 million in damages to the class.

The lawsuit, which was filed in 2003, alleges Merck made false claims about the benefits of its Coppertone sunscreen products. To be fair, Merck inherited the lawsuit in 2009 when it bought Schering-Plough Corp, which owned the popular Coppertone franchise.

As part of the settlement, Merck has agreed that all Coppertone sunscreen products manufactured on or after June 22, 2012 for sale in the United States, its territories and possessions, will not use the terms “sunblock,” “waterproof,” “sweatproof,” “all day” and/or “all day protection” in the label, advertising, marketing or promotion of the products.

When the settlement receives final approval, class members who purchased the Coppertone products at issue will be able to submit a claim worth up to $1.50 for each eligible sunscreen product purchased. Well, that ought to help!

Student Loan Relief? Finally, this week, a class action lawsuit settlement has been agreed between student loan borrowers and a subsidiary of SLM Corp. The lawsuit (Mark A. Arthur, et al. v. Sallie Mae Inc., No. 10-0198, W.D. Wash.), claimed the subsidiary violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by making a number of non-emergency autodialed calls and/or automated text messages to the borrowers’ cellular telephones in an attempt to collect on outstanding student loan debt. Nice!

The Sallie Mae settlement terms, which must first receive final approval, include Sallie Mae paying out $24.15 million to the borrowers that received the autodialed calls or automated text messages to their cellular phones by Sallie Mae Inc.

And on that note—I’m going to the bar. Have a great weekend!

Week Adjourned: 8.31.12 – Enfamil, Dollar Rent A Car, Citigroup

The weekly wrap of top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending August 31, 2012. Top stories include an Enfamil lawsuit, Dollar Rent A Car Fraud Allegations and a Citigroup settlement.

Top Class Actions

Sounds too good to be true? You better believe it baby—and pardon the pun. This week, the makers of Enfamil infant formula got hit with a federal consumer fraud class action lawsuit over allegations they falsely advertise that Enfamil and other formulas contain prebiotics that provide immunity-related health benefits for babies and young children.

The Enfamil class action lawsuit, Shenique Route v. Mead Johnson Nutrition Company d/b/a Mead Johnson & Company, LLC, Case No. 12-cv-7350, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, claims that Mead Johnson & Co. mislabel the products and that they do not support a baby’s developing immune system as advertised.

The Enfamil lawsuit targets misleading statements made on the product labels for Enfamil Premium Newborn formula, Enfamil Premium Infant formula, Enfamil A.R. for Spit-Up Infant formula, and Enfagrow Premium Older Toddler Vanilla Milk Drink products. In particular, the lawsuit takes issue with the claims they contain “Natural Defense Dual Prebiotics” and that they “act like breast milk.”

Specifically, the class action lawsuit states: “Enfamil’s ‘Natural Defense Dual Prebiotics’ do not provide health benefits as represented and certainly are not ‘proven’ to do so. Moreover, there is not competent and reliable scientific evidence supporting the Misrepresentation, and any purported link between immune response and prebiotics in the Mislabeled Products is entirely speculative.”

The lawsuit claims, “experts agree that breast milk is immeasurably superior to baby formula in terms of infant nutrition and other health benefits. Therefore, it is misleading for Defendant to advertise the Mislabeled Products as similar to breast milk when formula cannot provide anywhere near the level of benefits provided by breast milk.”

The Enfamil class action lawsuit is brought on behalf of all U.S. consumers who purchased the mislabeled Enfamil products listed above for personal or household use. It is seeking damages, restitution and more for several alleged violations, including violation of California’s False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, and breach of express and implied warranties.

Being taken for a ride?…Dollar Rent A Car is facing a federal consumer fraud class action lawsuit over allegations that the car rental company cheated customers out of millions of dollars by signing them up for insurance and other services they declined. Oh, the insurance—you know—that endless fine print that needs to be signed in less than 3 seconds—i.e. without reading.

The Dollar Rent A Car lawsuit, entitled Sandra McKinnon v. Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. d/b/a Dollar Rent a Car, et al., Case No. 12-cv-4457, claims: “Over the last four years Dollar has implemented a systematic program nationwide through which its employees and agents illegally dupe customers into signing up for collision damage waiver (‘CDW’), car insurance and other added services that consumers have specifically declined. This is not an isolated incident with one consumer, but rather a systematic pattern of conduct that has occurred at a number of Dollar locations located throughout the United States.”

“Dollar has received multiple complaints about these issues but incentivizes its employees to make such sales, even by illegal means. If employees fail to obtain an average 30 per day upsales of additional options for three months they may be terminated and not eligible for unemployment,” the lawsuit claims. “Employees are thus incentivized to take advantage of the customers’ irritation, long lines, and misleading or high pressure sales tactics, by just telling them to tap certain lines to decline coverage when it may have the opposite result, or simply forge their signature.”

The class action lawsuit is brought on behalf of Dollar customers who paid for CDW, insurance and other products from Dollar that they specifically declined or did not authorize during the past four years. It is seeking actual, compensatory, statutory and exemplary damages and an injunction barring Dollar from continuing this alleged scheme.

Top Settlements

And the subprime saga continues. This week Citigroup agreed to a securities class action settlement involving a $590 million payout to shareholders who alleged they had been misled about the bank’s exposure to subprime mortgage debt before the financial crisis.

Filed in November 2007, the lawsuit contends that Citigroup together with some of its former senior executives and directors failed to disclose the bank’s huge holdings in securities known as collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) that were tied to mortgage securities until November 2007, when it took a multibillion-dollar write-down on the CDOs. Citigroup later wrote down the CDOs by tens of billions of dollars more.

According to the lawsuit, Citigroup had previously tried to hide the deteriorating value of its holdings through improper accounting practices. “Citigroup used inflated, unreliable and unsupportable marks to keep its CDO-related quasi-Ponzi scheme alive and to give the appearance of a healthy asset base,” the lawsuit states.

The plaintiffs included pension funds in Colorado, Ohio and Illinois. The lawsuit was led by former employees and directors of Automated Trading Desk who received Citigroup shares when they sold the electronic trading firm to the bank in July 2007. The proposed settlement, which was given preliminary approval by Judge Sidney Stein of the U.S. District Court in New York, covers investors who bought Citi shares from Feb. 26, 2007, through April 18, 2008. Shares of Citigroup traded as high as $55 in the summer of 2007. By spring of 2008, its stock price had tumbled by half.

Ok—that’s it for this week—see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 5.18.12 – Tetley Tea, Skechers, Verizon

The weekly wrap on top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending May 18, 2012. This week’s top stories: Tetley Tea, Skechers and Verizon.

Top Class Actions

Actually, this week it’s Top Consumer Fraud Class Actions—because false advertising class action lawsuits seem to be the theme right now…

What’s Brewing at Tetley Tea? Let’s take Tetley Tea as an example—as of this week, the Tetley Tea is facing a federal consumer fraud class action lawsuit over allegations it falsely advertises the health benefits of its tea products, specifically that they are an “excellent” or “natural” source of antioxidants.

The Tetley Tea lawsuit states, “Tetley utilizes improper antioxidant, nutrient content, and health claims that have been expressly condemned by the FDA in numerous enforcement actions and warning letters” to other companies that made similar antioxidant claims, such as Unilever’s Lipton Tea.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all consumers in California who purchased Tetley Tea’s Classic Blend Black Tea, British Blend Black Tea, Pure Green Tea, Iced Tea Blend Tea, and/or Iced Tea Mix Tea within the last four years.

The lawsuit is seeking damages, restitution and other bits and pieces, for alleged claims of unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business acts and practices; misleading and deceptive advertising; untrue advertising; and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Act and Beverly-Song Act. That’s some laundry list.

Top Settlements

Couple of big preliminary settlements on—you guessed it—consumer fraud/false advertising class action lawsuits to tell you about this week…

Skechers Sketchy Health Claims. This one, all over the media, implies that Skechers may be guilty of sketchy health claims. At least the FTC thinks so. But not the shoe manufacturer, of course. Nevertheless, Skechers USA has agreed to pay $45M to resolve allegations brought by the US and state governments that it deceived customers about the health benefits of its Shape-ups athletic shoes.

The allegations center on claims that the shoe manufacturer’s athletic toning shoes help people lose weight and strengthen their buttocks and legs. Skechers aren’t the first athletic shoe maker to face penalties for their advertising claims—Reebok also got hit and settled for $25 million, but hey, according to news reports, these shoes are big business. Skechers reportedly made $1.4 billion in 2009.

According to a statement by the US Federal Trade Commission, Skechers, based in Manhattan Beach, California, also made false claims in advertising for its Resistance Runner, Tone-ups and Toners shoes.

According to a report by Bloomberg, the ads for Skechers that were challenged by the FTC include one for Shape-ups that told consumers they could “get in shape without setting foot in a gym,” according to the statement. The FTC alleges the company made unsupported claims that the shoes would provide more weight loss and muscle toning than regular fitness shoes.

You may be a class member if you purchased eligible Skechers toning shoes since August 1, 2008, with limited exclusions. The Court has not yet ruled on whether the settlement should be preliminarily approved. The Court may not grant preliminary approval or may require certain changes to the proposed settlement.

If the Court grants preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, you will have rights which you may wish to exercise, including rights to opt-out of the settlement or object.

Under the terms of the preliminary settlement, Skechers has agreed to provide refunds to consumers who bought the following Eligible Shoes as new since August 1, 2008:

Skechers Shape-ups rocker bottom shoes

Skechers Resistance Runner rocker bottom shoes

Skechers Shape-ups Toners/Trainers

Skechers Tone-ups with podded outsoles

Skechers Tone-ups non-podded sandals

Skechers boots

Skechers clogs

Skechers trainers (Tone-ups, non-podded sole)

The total refund you can receive from the Skechers shape-ups settlement will depend on how many Eligible Shoes you purchased from August 1, 2008, onwards, as well as the total number of valid claim forms submitted by other Class Members.

Possible reimbursements could be:

$40 – $80 for Shape-ups;

$27 – $50 for podded sole shoes;

$20 – $40 for Tone-ups (non-podded sole); and

$42 – $80 for Resistance Runners

To find out more about the Skechers settlement, whether or not you could qualify as a class member, and to download forms, visit http://www.skecherssettlement.com.

Verizon Calling —Verizon Land Lines that is. A preliminary settlement has been reached in a consumer fraud class action pending against Verizon. This time, it’s not health claims that are the issue—but third-party charges.

If you were billed for third-party charges on your Verizon landline telephone bill, you may be entitled to a payment from this class action settlement, if the settlement is approved.

The Settlement will provide for payments to all class members who properly submit Claim Forms by November 15, 2012. The payments will be either $40 in the case of approved Flat Payment Claims or the full amount (i.e., 100%) of unauthorized Third-Party Charges you paid in the case of approved Full Payment Claims. Some class members may have a claim for less than $40. Class counsel contends that some class members may have a claim for hundreds of dollars, or more.

You must submit a claim form in order to qualify for payment. This is the only way to get a payment. You may submit a Flat Payment Claim for $40 or a Full Payment Claim for 100% of all unauthorized charges you paid. To file a claim, you must complete a Claim Form either online or download a Claim Form, print it out and mail it to the Settlement Administrator by November 15, 2012. You can find the claims forms by visiting www.verizonthirdpartybillingsettlement.com.

The Court in charge of this case has given its preliminary approval to the Settlement but still has to decide whether to give final approval to the Settlement. Payments will be made if the Court gives final approval to the Settlement and after appeals, if any, are resolved.

OKee dokee. Enough business as usual—it’s the weekend! See you at the bar—where the health benefits are obvious and require no advertising…

Week Adjourned: 4.27.12 – Bumble Bee Tuna, Vita Coco, Citizens Bank

The weekly wrap on top class action lawsuits and settlements, for the week ending April 27, 2012. Top stories on Bumble Bee Tuna, Vita Coco and Citizens Bank.

Top Class Actions

Bumble Bee Got Stung This Week—with a consumer fraud class action. Yes, it’s true, I’m afraid. The worker bee of tinned seafood (I have never understood what a bumble bee is doing on a tin of tuna) is facing allegations that it repeatedly violated California and federal laws that require companies to use truthful, accurate information on their packaged food labels. (Shame, shame.)

At specific issue in the Bumble Bee lawsuit are the health claims made by Bumble Bee Foods pertaining to its tinned seafood products.

The alleged violations include failing to disclose that Omega-3 has no established Daily Value under FDA regulations, and a failure to properly disclose the high levels of fat, saturated fat and cholesterol in Bumble Bee food products on the packaging and labeling.

The Bumble Bee class action lawsuit states “To appeal to consumer preferences, Bumble Bee has repeatedly made unlawful nutrient claims on products containing disqualifying levels of fat, sodium and cholesterol. These nutrient content claims were unlawful because they failed to include disclosure statements required by law that are designed to inform consumers of the inherently unhealthy nature of those products. ”

The lawsuit states, by way of example, “Tuna Salad Original with Crackers Kit” has 18g of fat per labeled serving, but does not bear a statement that fat exceeding the specified level is present.

The Bumble Bee Foods lawsuit is a nationwide class seeking to represent consumers who purchased Bumble Bee products labeled “Rich in Natural Omega-3” or “Excellent Source Omega-3” within the last 4 years. The California-based law firm of Pratt & Associates is representing the plaintiffs in this class action.

Top Settlements

Something a Little Loco ‘Bout Vita Coco…While we’re on the subject of consumer fraud—a preliminary settlement has been reached in the consumer fraud class action lawsuit against All Market Inc. d/b/a Vita Coco. You must remember this—(a kiss is just a—no—wrong song sheet)—it’s the miracle vitamin water. After all, it does everything including taking the garbage out.

If you purchased Vita Coco Products between August 10, 2007 and the present you may be entitled to a payment from a class action settlement.

Under the terms of the settlement, Vita Coco agreed to set aside $1 million (the “Cash Settlement Fund”), which will provide for payments to Settlement Class Members who timely file claims of up to a maximum of $25.00 with Proof of Purchase (as defined in the Stipulation) and $6.00 without Proof of Purchase. Vita Coco has agreed to provide $1 million current retail value in product vouchers, which can be redeemed by Settlement Class Members who timely file claims in lieu of cash up to a maximum of $36.00 with Proof of Purchase or $8.00 without Proof of Purchase.

There are other conditions the company has agreed to as part of the Vita Coco settlement, which you can find here along with your options as a class member- e.g., do you want to remain in the settlement class, or would you like to be excluded…where do you obtain forms, those kinds of things.

This settlement is only preliminary. The Court will hold a hearing on August 22, 2012 to consider whether to grant final approval of the settlement and whether to grant Class Counsel’s (as defined in the Stipulation) request for attorneys’ fees, reimbursement of expenses and incentive awards for class representatives.

Good Citizens They Weren’t but…It’s Payback Time! Citizens Bank has agreed to pay $137.5 million (Cha Ching!) to settle a class action lawsuit which accused the bank of manipulating its customers’ debit card and ATM transactions in order to generate excess overdraft fee revenues for the bank.

The lawsuit is part of multidistrict litigation involving more than 30 different banks entitled In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, case number 09-cv-02036, is pending before U.S. District Judge James Lawrence King in Miami. Citizens Bank is part of Citizens Financial Group which, through RBS Citizens, N.A. and Citizens Bank of Pennsylvania, operates more than 1,500 retail banking branches throughout the Northeast, the Mid-Atlantic and the Mid-West.

The Citizens Bank lawsuit claims that the bank employed software programs designed to extract the greatest possible number of overdraft fees from its customers. According to the lawsuit, Citizens Bank re-sequenced its customers’ debit card and ATM transactions by posting them in highest-to-lowest dollar amount, rather than in the actual order in which the transactions were initiated by the customers and authorized by the bank. According to the lawsuit, this internal bookkeeping practice resulted in Citizens’ customers being charged substantially more in overdraft fees than if their debit card and ATM transactions had been posted in the order in which they were authorized by the bank.

I wonder if that settlement amount includes interest?

And on that note—happy weekend. Where’s the gin got to…

Week Adjourned: 3.30.12 (Barefoot Running, LG Electronics, Deutsche Bank)

The weekly wrap-up of class action lawsuits and class action settlements for the week ending March 30, 2012.

Top Class Actions

Barefoot running benefits nothing more than barefaced lies? Well, it remains to be seen, but certainly there’s doubt over its merits—though no doubts re: its ugliness—and allegations of injury resulting from the barefoot running shoe. (Is it really a shoe?) A consumer fraud class action lawsuit was filed this week against Vibram USA Inc and Vibram FiveFingers LLC, alleging the company used deceptive statements about the health benefits of barefoot running.

Filed on behalf of Florida resident Valerie Bezdek, the Barefoot Running Shoes lawsuit alleges that 1) health benefits claims Vibram FiveFingers has used to promote the shoes are deceptive; 2) that FiveFingers may increase injury risk as compared to running in conventional running shoes, and even when compared to running barefoot; 3) that there are no well-designed scientific studies that support FiveFingers claims.

“Given that Defendant’s advertising and marketing equates barefoot running with running in FiveFingers, Defendant’s uniform deceptive statements about barefoot running are also deceptive statements about Five Fingers,” the lawsuit claims.

The lawsuit also states that sales of the Vibram FiveFingers shoes have grown an average of 300 percent a year for the last five years and approached $70 million in 2011. That’s certainly not chump change.

LG TV lifespans less than expected. You know, you could make the argument that defective products help the market economy—something breaks—you go buy a new one—right? Well, not according to some disgruntled LG consumers. They filed a federal class action lawsuit against LG Electronics USA, alleging that the electronics manufacturer’s plasma and LCD Television sets are defective, impacting the lifespan of the televisions. And they are not prepared to go out and buy new sets. Can you blame them?

The LG Electronics class action lawsuit seeks to represent anyone else who purchased certain defective LG televisions in the state of Nevada. Class televisions include but are not limited to models 32LC2D, 37LC2D, 42LC2D, 42PC3D, 42PC3DV, 47LC7DF and 50PC3D.

The lawsuit alleges that the televisions are defective in that they contain internal components called printed wiring boards (also known as printed circuit boards) that prematurely fail during normal operation of the televisions (the “defect”). The defect, which was present upon delivery and which manifests itself over time, ultimately results in the failure of the televisions themselves well before the end of their expected useful life, and rendering the televisions unsuitable for their principal and intended purpose. I’m guessing that’s watching TV…

Top Settlements

Danke schön, Deutsche Bank (not). It’s the financial mess that never ends—though you have to admit, it’s given the document shredding industry cause for a few high-five’s… A preliminary settlement was announced this week in the lawsuit pending against Deutsche Bank—with the German financial house agreeing to pony up a paltry $32.5 million to settle claims that it lied about the quality of home loans underlying the securities it sold. (Well Hel-lo. And where in the settlements line-up is this one?)

The investors that sued include the Massachusetts Bricklayers and Masons Trust Funds. They have filed a motion for preliminary approval of the Deutsche Bank settlement in federal court in Central Islip, New York.

“The proposed settlement will provide a substantial monetary benefit to the settlement class,” court papers state.

According to the lawsuit, and as reported by Bloomberg.com, in 2006, the plaintiffs bought from Deutsche Bank so-called pass-through certificates that gave them the right to the payments on the underlying home loans. The offering documents contained misstatements about loan underwriting standards, property appraisals, loan-to-value ratios and credit ratings on the certificates, according to the complaint. At the same time Deutsche Bank was selling the securities, it was profiting from credit-default swaps by wagering that loans like those underlying the certificates would decline in value, the investors claim.

The lawsuit also states “More than 49 percent of the loans underlying one certificate series were delinquent or foreclosed on,” the investors said. The tranche the Massachusetts Bricklayers and Masons Trust Funds, the lead plaintiff, bought “has already realized cumulative principal losses.”

The investors also claim that had a sale been done in 2008 when the lawsuit was filed, they would have netted between 70 and 80 cents on the dollar. “The certificates are no longer marketable at prices anywhere near the price paid,” the lawsuit states. So I guess $32.5 million doesn’t look so bad now.

OK–That’s a wrap. Happy Friday everyone–Mickey Mouse says it’s Martini Time! (and may one of us hit #MegaMillions!)

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: 3.9.12 (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!