Top Lawsuits & Class Action LawsuitsIt slices and dices, cuts and chops… all sorts of things—including your fingers. And this week, Nutribullet, the maker of Magic Bullet got slapped with a defective products lawsuit filed by a customer who alleges the blender poses a risk of injury to users due to a defect which causes the product to malfunction. Continue reading “Week Adjourned: 2.16.18 – NutriBullet, Medical Malpractice”
The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements including Michaels craft stores data breach, Memphis TN cemetery and funeral homes, and NuvaRing settlements.
Top Class Action LawsuitsCrafty Hackers? Another week—another data breach class action lawsuit. This one targets Michaels Arts and Crafts stores—where maybe there was a bit too much creativity happening, and not on the sales floor. The company is facing a federal data breach class action lawsuit following the release of its statement announcing customers’ personal information may have been stolen.
Filed by customer and plaintiff Christina Moyer, the Michaels lawsuit, entitled Moyer v. Michaels Stores Inc., Case No. 1:140cv-00561, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleges the Texas-based retailer was negligent in protecting customer information. Specifically, Moyer, who shopped at Michaels recently, alleges she is now paying for credit monitoring and identity theft protection because of the possible compromise, and that Michaels breached an implied contract with her and others by failing to adequately protect their private information.
Further, the lawsuit claims Michaels “did not adequately monitor their information technology system for the presence of intruders in a manner that would enable them to detect this intrusion, so that they breach of security and diversion of customer information was able to continue unnoticed fora period of time.”
Moyer is seeking a declaratory judgment that Michaels pay for credit monitoring and identity theft insurance, and be ordered to indemnify Moyer and the class for future harm.
Do you Know Where your Loved Ones are? This is deeply creepy—in so many ways…. A $100 million consumer fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against Galilee Memorial Gardens cemetery, its owners M.J. Edwards, N.J. Ford, and two well-known Memphis funeral homes, and any other funeral home that contracted business with Galilee Memorial Gardens after December 31, 2010, which is when its business license became invalid.
The funeral home lawsuit alleges the defendants lost bodies, disinterred bodies, stacked bodies/caskets on top of one another in single burial plots, crushed caskets to enable stacking more than one individual in a single burial plot, and lost track of remains and buried bodies, among other things.
Anyone who buried a body at Galilee Memorial Gardens after December 31, 2010 was doing so in violation of state law. Attorneys for the plaintiffs estimate at least 1,000 bodies were buried there in the past three years.
The lawsuit also states that funeral homes that conducted business with Galilee were on active and constructive notice that the individual who held the business license for the cemetery had died months before the license expired.
The lawsuit seeks to represent anyone with a loved one buried at Galilee Memorial Gardens in the past three years.
Hundreds of NuvaRing lawsuits are about to be settled by Merck & Co. The New Jersey based pharmaceutical company has agreed to pay $100 million to settle the lawsuits, and end allegations it downplayed serious health risks associated with the contraceptive device.
The NuvaRing agreement will settle cases in both federal and state courts, with plaintiffs expected to receive about $58,000 per complaint.
Currently, there are over 1,700 NuvaRing personal injury and defective product lawsuits pending against Merck. They allege the company failed to adequately warn women about the potential increased risk for developing dangerous blood clots known as venous thromboembolism associated with the device. Plaintiffs are seeking damages for a range of injuries allegedly caused by the birth control device, including heart attack, stroke and sudden death.
Available in the US since 2001, NuvaRing is one of several contraceptive products that have been linked to an increased risk of developing blood clots that can cause strokes and heart attacks. As of March 2012, approximately 12,000 lawsuits had been brought against Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the manufacturer of Yasmin, Yaz, Beyaz and Safyral, alleging an increased risk of blood clots (deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE)) and gallbladder problems. Ocella, the generic version of Yasmin, is also associated with serious side effects, some of which are potentially fatal. In 2013, Bayer AG paid $1.6 billion to settle those lawsuits. If the $100 million figure Merck is supposedly to pay proves accurate, it will be a much smaller settlement.
Ok Folks, That’s all for this week. Happy Valentine’s Day! See you at the bar!
The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending December 6, 2013. Top class actions include Fisher Price, Starbucks and FalconStor Software.
Top Class Action LawsuitsRock ‘N Mold? Heads-Up anyone who purchased a Fisher-Price Rock ‘N Play Bassinet or baby seat prior to January 2010:
Fisher Price and Mattel are facing a defective products class action lawsuit over allegations the Rock N Play baby seat has design flaws which results in it growing mold. Nice.
The Fisher-Price Rock ‘N Play Mold Growth Class Action Lawsuit, entitled is Butler v. Mattel Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-00306, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleges Mattel and Fisher-Price were aware of the Rock ‘N Play design flaw since 2010. Specifically, the lawsuit claims that the baby seat design does not allow for adequate ventilation around the seat, making the product conducive to dangerous mold growth. The lawsuit, states that mold “is linked with serious respiratory illnesses and inflammatory problems in infants and recent long-term studies have suggested that infants exposed to environmental mold are nearly three times as likely to develop asthma by age seven.”
The Consumer Product Safety Commission has received in excess of 600 consumer complaints alleging mold growth between the Rock ‘N Play’s removable cushion and plastic frame, prior to the device recall in January 2013. At the time, 16 complaints included reports of infants becoming sick from the mold. Fisher-Price faced at least on lawsuit filed by a couple who alleged their son was hospitalized for respiratory problems after being exposed to mold that they claim developed on his Rock ‘N Play seat.
The Mattel and Fisher-Price marketed the Rock ‘N Play class action lawsuit claims the defendants failed to warn consumers that the sleeper was prone to mold growth. The plaintiffs further claim the defendants failed to test the product for mold growth or humidity resistance prior to releasing it on the market, even though they were aware that the seat would be regularly exposed to moisture and warmth—conditions conducive to mold growth.
According to the lawsuit, “Within seven months of the Rock ‘N Play’s release, concerned consumers began to call Defendants to complain that their Rock ‘N Plays were ‘moldy’ and, in many instances, that their infants were having respiratory problems they attributed to the mold.”
The lawsuit goes on to claim that tests for mold were only conducted on the product after hundreds of consumer complaints had been made detailing babies becoming ill from mold exposure. And, the lawsuit states that Mattel and Fisher-Price did not take timely action to either fix the defect or warn consumers about the risks, even though they were aware of the design defect.
While the defendants issued a recall of the Rock ‘N Play on January 8, 2013, the lawsuit claims that it was inadequate because it “consists solely of a 16 page booklet of cleaning instructions downloadable from the Internet, instructing owners to inspect the product for visible mold and, if mold is seen, undertake an onerous cleaning process that will cause damage to the product.”
The plaintiffs are seeking certification of a nationwide class of people who acquired a Fisher-Price Rock ‘N Play Sleeper that was sold prior to the January 8, 2013 recall. The plaintiffs also seek to certify three subclasses of California, Pennsylvania and Maryland residents who purchased the Rock ‘N Play prior to January 8, 2013.
Phantom of the Paycheck. Well, here’s a new take on an old theme….taxable phantom wages…? Yup. Three ex-Starbucks employees have filed a wage and hour class action lawsuit alleging the coffee company adds a taxable “phantom wage” of 50 cents an hour in tips to paychecks, which results in some employees receiving less than the minimum wage. The lawsuit claims that Starbucks in is violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which prohibits employers making deductions in employees pay that would result in those employees making less than minimum wage.
Entitled, Fredrickson, et al. v. Starbucks Corp., Case No. 13-cv-02041, U.S. District Court Oregon, Portland Office, the lawsuit, filed by Hannah Fredrickson, lead plaintiff, states that Starbucks discourages employees from reporting their tips. Further, the lawsuit claims, “Starbucks just makes up that phantom number out of thin air.” Therefore, the lawsuit contends that Starbucks “willfully filed fraudulent information,” in violation of federal tax law, by reporting the made-up tips in W-2 returns.
According to the Starbucks class action, “Starbucks deducts amounts from its employees’ pay that reduce their paychecks below the minimum wage and/or overtime requirements. Its stated reason for the deduction is that the employees owe taxes on their tips, but that is false. Neither Oregon nor federal law require Starbucks to withhold taxes from unreported tips. The employees do not owe taxes on the tips, because their income is low enough that the withholdings from their regular wages are more than enough to meet their annual tax burden. Even if this were not the case, however, the employees would not have to pay any taxes on those unreported tips until the following April 15 (tax day). The FLSA requires employers to pay the minimum wage and overtime on payday, so the fact that the employees might receive a refund of these wrongfully deducted amounts (in many cases over a year later) does not eliminate the violation.”
Fredrickson is seeking class certification, an injunction, and damages for wage and hour violations and $5,000 or the sum of actual damages incurred, whichever is greater, for providing false information on tax returns.
Securities Settlement News… FalconStor Software is going to pony up some cash, it looks like. A proposed $5 million settlement has been reached in the securities class action lawsuit its facing, which was filed by purchasers of FalconStor Software, Inc. (Nasdaq:FALC) common stock.
The FalconStor Software settlement would affect all persons who purchased the common stock of Falconstor Software Inc during the class period March 12, 2008 to September 29, 2010, inclusive.
Here’s the skinny: If you purchased FalconStor common stock during the period of March 12, 2008 through September 29, 2010, inclusive, you may be a member of the Class described above, and your rights may be affected by the Settlement of this Litigation.
If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release, you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at: www.strategicclaims.net.
If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release postmarked no later than January 20, 2014, establishing that you are entitled to recovery, in the manner and form explained in the Notice. If you are a Class Member and do not submit a proper Proof of Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will be bound by any judgment or orders entered by the Court in the Litigation, whether or not you submit a claim.
If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion received no later than January 20, 2014, in the manner and form explained in the Notice. All members of the Settlement Class who do not request exclusion will be bound by any judgment entered in the Litigation.
For complete information on the proposed settlement and class action lawsuit, and to download forms, visit: www.strategicclaims.net.
Ok Folks, That’s all for this week. See you at the Bar!
The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top class actions include Electrolux washers, ING Annuities, FedEx overcharges.
Top Class Action LawsuitsWere you out Shopping for Appliances on Black Friday? If so, a federal class action lawsuit has been filed against Electrolux Home Products Inc, over allegations the company marketed and sold defective washing machines.
Filed by plaintiffs Gloria Waters and William Hall, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the lawsuit claims that Electrolux sold front-loading washing machines that are prone to accumulate mold.
The Electrolux lawsuit alleges the manufacturer sold the defective washing machines under brand names including Frigidaire and Kenmore, and that Electrolux knowingly concealed the fact that the washing machines were prone to accumulate mold and mildew which can permeate throughout the consumer’s home and ruin clothes.
The plaintiffs are accusing Electrolux of breaching implied warranties by selling products they allegedly knew were defective, and are seeking an undisclosed amount in damages.
Thinking of Annuities InvestING? If you’re a senior or know a senior—you may be interested to learn that an annuities class action lawsuit has been filed against ING. Filed by Ernest Abbit of California, the lawsuit alleges the financial services firm indexed financial instruments that failed to meet the advertised goals and that company officials failed to properly advise seniors of the risks associated with investing in the annuities.
According to the ING lawsuit, the stated goal of ING indexed annuities, is to provide seniors in various age groups with “protection of principal”, which means reducing the risks of investment while using various investments products aimed at “fueling the value of our annuity” “to build up your retirement savings.” Abbit claims ING failed to back up their claims. Sound familiar?
Abbit alleges in the class action, that he, and others similarly situated, have lost as much as 20 percent of their savings, “on the first day” of investment, due to the lack of information regarding what the product provided. His returns are allegedly a fraction of those an investor would have received by investing in the S&P 500 as a whole, the index his annuity was allegedly designed to mirror. Umm.
Specifically, the lawsuit, The ING Annuity Class Action Lawsuit, entitled Ernest O. Abbit, et al. v. ING USA Annuity and Life Insurance Company, Case No. 13-cv-2310, U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, claims that ING’s the financial instruments are “wolves-in-sheep’s clothing” and that their statements are “opaque.” The lawsuit claims that not only did the instruments fail to return as advertised, but that those investments contained “embedded derivatives” similar to those that led to the financial collapse in 2008. ING indexed annuities were structured, the lawsuit claims, so that the company would benefit from any derivatives income while at the same time putting it senior investors at risk for losses.
According to the class action, in 2005 the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), which is the financial services industry’s self-governing body operating as a private monitor, warned that the products Abbit and others were invested in were accompanied by sales material that “do not fully describe the features and risks of the products.” insurance companies allegedly changing their annuity obligations or not being able to meet those obligations are Aviva, Transamerica, The Principal Financial Group, MetLife, Prudential, Guggenheim and Genworth. Variable annuity holders who purchased their annuities in the past three years from those companies may be eligible to file a claim against those companies.
FedEx to deliver $21.5 million in cash and billing practice changes, ending a consumer fraud class action lawsuit brought against it by business and government agencies.
Granted final approval this week, the FedEx settlement ends the lawsuit brought in 2011 by two law firms, which alleged the world’s largest cargo delivery company overcharged by as much as $3 per package for tens of thousands of packages. Ouch! That could add up.
The plaintiffs, made up of government and business customers, claimed FedEx charged residential rates to destinations including the US Citizenship and Immigration Office in Chicago, a Bank of America Corp. facility in Tampa, Florida, and the Safariland Group body armor company in Jacksonville, Florida.
FedEx has denied the allegations but has agreed to settle. No news there.
The settlement was preliminarily settled in July. FYI—the class period is from August 28, 2008, to July 13, 2011, and involves FedEx customers who used the carrier’s services and didn’t get a full refund for claimed overcharges on residential deliveries.
The case is Manjunath A. Gokare PC v. Federal Express Corp., 11-cv-02131, U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee (Memphis).
Ok Folks, That’s all for this week. Happy Shopping till you’re Dropping!
The top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending August 9, 2013. Top stories include Walmart, Mona Vie and Gentek siding.
Top Class Action LawsuitsWhat’s the Straight Talk, Walmart? Well, Walmart, it seems just cannot stay out of court. This time—a consumer fraud class action lawsuit alleging false and deceptive advertising has been filed against the world’s largest retailer and alleged co-conspirator StraightTalk.
The litany of alleged wrongs committed by the defendants include breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and violations of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law and California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act. That’s all.
Among the goals of the class action is to get clarity on the limitations of the data service. Straight Talk representatives, it seems, have allegedly refused to explicitly define throttling points for data access, and many customers have complained about receiving inconsistent data service without using much data at all, while others are able to use gigabytes of data without much issue.
The plaintiffs are seeking certification of the proposed class, an order permanently enjoining defendants from their improper conduct, and a judgment awarding restitution, actual damages, exemplary damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs.
Mona Vie Super Juice a Super Scam? Yes—according to a consumer fraud class action lawsuit filed this week. The Mona Vie class action lawsuit claims that it’s no more than a multi-level marketing scheme to promote an expensive “super juice” (Mona Vie).
Filed in federal court by lead plaintiff Lisa Pontrelli, the lawsuit states “The Mona Vie juice scam is the newest creation of noted multi-level marketing scheme architect, and prior ‘super juice’ creator, Dallin Larsen, after his last venture was halted by the Food and Drug Administration because of false and misleading advertising.” Dallin Larsen is not a named defendant in the complaint but his companies are, namely Mona Vie Inc. and Mona Vie LLC, both of South Jordan, Utah.
“Mona Vie’s story is almost identical to that of Royal Tongan Limu—another ‘super juice’ product with too-good-to-be-true alleged health benefits,” the complaint reads.
Larsen created both products, which are based on an exotic ‘superfood’. Marketing for both products is based on claims that they provide outlandish health benefits when consumed, including curing cancer and diabetes. Both Royal Tongan Limu and Mona Vie were allegedly sold by untrained ‘distributors’ extolling the unproven health benefits to unwitting customers.
“The propaganda created through the Mona Vie scheme is false and misleading about the nature of and benefits attributable to consuming Mona Vie juice. The propaganda is an essential component of the scheme because the perpetuation of the belief that Mona Vie juice will cure or treat whatever health problems a consumer might have is the main reason defendants are able to charge the wrongfully inflated price of approximately $45 for a 25 ounce bottle,” according to the lawsuit.
Further, the Mona Vie lawsuit claims that the independent distributors, as an essential part of the scam.”Defendants and their ‘independent distributors’ sales force work together in a symbolic fashion to sell as much wrongfully overpriced Mona Vie juice as possible,” the lawsuit states.
“Defendants know that their co-conspirator ‘independent distributors’ generate false and misleading advertising about the health benefits of Mona Vie juice, but do not stop them because such advertisements generate sales of Mona Vie juice. The most insidious form of this false and misleading advertising are the testimonials where individuals attribute miraculous medical breakthroughs to their individual chronic health condition to drinking Mona Vie juice. Defendants, of course, taught their ‘independent distributors’ how to generate such testimonials by themselves hiring individuals of modest celebrity to make their own misleading testimonials.”
The lawsuit alleges the class has been defrauded by paying “outrageously inflated” prices for products that fail to deliver the promised “substantial prophylactic, healing, therapeutic and curative powers for an almost limitless universe of diseases and conditions.” Pontrelli is seeking an injunction and punitive damages for fraud, consumer fraud and unjust enrichment.
Gentek Siding Steel Peel Case Settles. Gentek, makers of exterior siding that suffers from “steel peel” (that’s certainly confidence inducing), will have to honor its warrantees, as ordered by US District Court Judge Benita Y. Pearson, in a Final Order, approving a defective products class action settlement against the building products company.
The lawsuit, entitled Eliason, et al. v. Gentek Building Products, Inc., et al., Case No.: 1:10-cv-02093-BYP, alleged the siding manufactured and sold by Gentek is defectively designed and manufactured in such a way that it will prematurely fail, causing damage to consumer homes.
The Gentek siding lawsuit was filed on behalf of a number of Plaintiffs who alleged that the exterior siding manufactured by Gentek is defective and fails within the warranty period. The manufacturer’s warranty is supposed to cover cracking, chipping, flaking, peeling or splitting for the life of the purchaser. The warranty is in effect for 50 years from the original installation in the case that the property is sold to a new owner.
According to the lawsuit, the siding peels, cracks and chips are within the warranty period. Furthermore, the lawsuit alleged that Gentek failed to honor its warranty. The Plaintiffs claim that instead of repairing, replacing or refinishing the siding as promised, Gentek only offers a small amount of money as compensation or offer to repaint the affected area only. The lawsuit claimed that the sum of money offered was inadequate to reverse the damage, and that repainting only the affected area would only lead to future repairs because it did not address the underlying problem. How helpful.
According to the Judge’s Order, for settlement purposes, the class in this litigation was certified to be all persons, organizations, municipalities, corporations and entities that own property, whether commercial or residential, on which Gentek Steel Siding was applied during the period January 1, 1991 through March 15, 2013, that are covered by a Gentek Steel Siding warranty and which siding experienced Steel Peel.
Ok Folks, That’s all for this week. Have a good one—see you at the bar!
The weekly wrap of top class action lawsuits & settlements. Top stories include MyFord Touch, MyLincoln Touch, MyMercury Touch, Nissan battery warranties and the Lac-Megantic train crash.
Top Class Action LawsuitsMyGosh, MyFord Touch ain’t Working! Well, that’s what the plaintiffs in a proposed class action lawsuit filed this week are alleging. Specifically, that Ford Motor Company’s MyFord Touch, MyLincoln Touch and MyMercury Touch touchscreen systems are defective, often freezing, failing to respond to voice and touch commands and failing to connect to mobile phones.
The MyFord class action, filed in the U.S. District Court for Central California, includes a long list of problems with the system, and details Ford’s failed attempts at correcting the system through system updates and other fixes.
The systems, introduced by Ford in 2011, promised owners of Ford, Lincoln and Mercury vehicles with the ability to seamlessly operate audio controls, use a GPS navigation system, control climate systems and operate a Bluetooth-enabled device through the system.
“In theory, MyFord Touch is a brilliant idea and worth the premium that Ford charged its customers for the system,” said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman and one of the attorneys who filed the lawsuit. “In reality, the system is fundamentally flawed, failing to reliably provide functionality, amounting to an inconvenience at best, and a serious safety issue at worst.”
Lac-Mégantic Crash Leads to Lawsuit. Sadly, among the biggest news stories this week, on both sides of the US-Canadian border, is the devastation caused by a runaway Montreal, Maine & Atlantic train that slammed into the small Quebec township of Lac Magentic, killing some 50 people and obliterating the town center in an inferno fueled by the train’s cargo of crude oil.
Not surprisingly, on Monday, two residents of Lac-Mégantic filed a train crash class action lawsuit against the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic railway, company chairman Edward Burkhardt and president Robert Grindrod.
On Thursday, July 18, the class action proceeding (motion for authorization) was amended to include further defendants, World Fuel Services Corp., Dakota Plains Holdings, Irving Oil Limited, and their subsidiaries. World Fuel Services is a publicly traded US corporation and Irving Oil is one of Canada’s largest oil companies.
The claims made against the newly added defendants include the allegation that they failed to ensure that the highly flammable contents of the DOT-111 tankers that derailed in Lac-Mégantic’s downtown area in the early morning hours of July 6, 2013 were properly contained and safely transported. The Motion to authorize was amended to reflect the fact that the liability for the accident is spread across a broader network of involved corporations. As the facts develop additional entities may be implicated.
The Lac-Mégantic class action is being pursued to ensure that the victims of the July 6, 2013 derailment and all those affected obtain compensation for their substantial losses. The proposed representative plaintiffs are Guy Ouellet, whose partner, Diane Bizier, died in the explosion and Yannick Gagné, the owner of the popular restaurant, Musi-Café, which was destroyed as a result of the derailment and ensuing explosions.
A team of class action lawyers has been assembled to assist the Lac-Mégantic community to litigate the action, and consists of Lac-Mégantic lawyer Daniel E. Larochelle, Consumer Law Group Inc. in Montreal, Rochon Genova LLP of Toronto and Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP of New York and San Francisco.
Nissan Turning over a New Leaf? A proposed $10 million settlement has been reached in a defective automotive class action lawsuit pending against automaker Nissan. The lawsuit alleged that the Nissan Leaf suffered from a thermal management defect, that its lithium-ion battery loses capacity over time at an excessive rate when operated in a high temperature environment and that the vehicle does not have the driving range represented by Nissan.
The terms of the Nissan settlement involve Nissan agreeing to expand battery warranties for approximately 18,588 current and former owners of the 2011-2012 Nissan Leaf throughout the US. Additionally, Nissan will extend the Leaf warranty to add battery capacity loss to its existing limited warranty for up to 60 months or 60,000 miles, requiring Nissan to repair the battery to at least 70 percent of its full capacity, and if repair is not possible, to replace the pack with a newly manufactured or reconditioned one.
All class members will be automatically included in the settlement unless they choose to opt out and Nissan will mail notice of the new warranty once the agreement is finalized.
The case is Klee at al. v. Nissan North America Inc. et al., case number in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
Ok folks, have a safe and happy weekend—see you at the bar!
This week, the top class actions in the news are Apple, Skechers, Path and Fisker. Week Adjourned is your weekly wrap of class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending April 12, 2013.
Top Class Action LawsuitsNo, the Path to Profit is not through Spam…as Path social media can now attest to. The mobile social network got hit with a potential class-action lawsuit this week for allegedly sending unsolicited text ads to people’s cell phones, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
Filed in Illinois, by Kevin Sterk, the Path lawsuit alleges that Sterk received an unsolicited SMS message in March from Path. The message stated that someone else wanted to show Sterk photos on the service, and contained a link to a site where he could register to join. Sterk claims he never authorized Path to contact him via SMS. Further, the lawsuit alleges the company has sent similar text messages to “thousands” of other cell phone users.
“By making these unauthorized text message calls, [Path] has caused consumers actual harm, not only because consumers were subjected to the aggravation that necessarily accompanies the receipt of unauthorized text message calls, but also because consumers frequently have to pay their cell phone service providers for the receipt of such unauthorized text message calls,” the TCPA lawsuit states.
The Path class action lawsuit contends that these unsolicited messages violate the TCPA, which prohibits companies from using automated dialing services to send SMS messages without the recipients’ consent. The law provides for damages of $500 per incident. Sterk, who is seeking class-action status, is asking for monetary damages and an order prohibiting Path from sending unsolicited text messages.
I wish someone would come up with an app that would enable the average Joe to spam the spammers. Now, that could be fun!
Forewarned isn’t Forearmed at Fisker? The folks at Fisker are facing an employment class action lawsuit filed over allegations it failed to provide 60 days notice to employees who were part of recent mass layoffs. Those layoffs are allegedly in violation of US and California labor laws.
FYI—the US Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, a federal law, stipulates that companies with over 100 employees must provide 60 days notice prior to laying off their employees. There is also a similar requirement in place under California state law.
The employment lawsuit against Fisker alleges the company failed to pay the employees their 60 days pay and benefits that they would have been received had they been provided their duly entitled 60-day notice. Further, the lawsuit claims Fisker failed to notify California’s state Employment Development Department of its layoff plans, as well as the local workforce investment board, as well as the top elected officials in Anaheim and Orange County.
A bit Sketchy on Skechers? Well, it’s official, but not approved. Confused? Don’t be. Last September we reported that Skechers has agreed to a preliminary $40 million settlement of a consumer fraud class action brought by disgruntled customers who claim the company misrepresented the benefits of the “toning shoes.”
Entitled Grabowski v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., No. 3:12-cv-00204 (W.D. Ky.), the lawsuit concerns claims that Skechers violated certain state laws and consumer protection statutes in connection with the marketing and sale of its toning shoes. Not surprisingly, Skechers denies those allegations.
It looks as if final approval may be at hand, as the fairness hearing was scheduled for mid-March 2013. This matters to you purchased eligible Skechers toning shoes from August 1, 2008, up to and including August 13, 2012 in the United States.
To find out more information and to download claims forms, visit: http://www.skecherssettlement.com/
Bad Apples, eh? This one is all over the wires today…Apple—the faltering god of all things techno—has reportedly agreed to a $53 million settlement in the class action lawsuit pending over alleged defective iPhones and iPod Touch.
The unfair business practices class action was originally filed against Apple in 2010, and centered around claims that the company failed to honor its warranty obligations by fixing or replacing defective devices.
According to a report by CNET, thousands of owners of the original iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, or the first three generations of the iPod Touch who were unsuccessful in getting Apple to honor its warranty related to repairs and replacements, can submit claims in the suit. These devices carried one-year standard and two-year extended warranties.
The settlement has yet to be approved, and full details have not been made public. Wired is reporting that depending on how many people submit claims, individual payouts could be approximately $200. Stay tuned for more on this one.
Ok—that’s a wrap. See you at that bar…
The weekly wrap of top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending December 28, 2012. Top class action stories include Instagram, Toyota and BP Oil Spill.
Top Class Action LawsuitsInsta-cha-ching? You share your photos for free—and Instagram sells them for a profit? What? You have a problem with that? This week, Instagram got hit with a proposed unfair business practices class action lawsuit related to its recently updated terms of service. Specifically, the lawsuit, filed by California Instagram user Lucy Funes, alleges the company is in breach of contract: “[Instagram’s] unreasonable change of Terms accordingly violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in Instagram’s current Terms,” the Instagram class action lawsuit states.
Instagram, now owned by Facebook, announced updates to its privacy policy and terms of service the week before Christmas, and one provision stood out: The right apparently reserved by Instagram to sell users’ photos without notice or compensation. Very crafty. Why is it no surprise that Facebook is somehow involved in this?
As a result of rapid and large user backlash, the photo-sharing site denied that it had plans to sell user photos, referring to the upset as a misunderstanding. The new terms of service will go into effect January 16, 2013.
According to the Instagram lawsuit, “On behalf of a class of Instagram’s California customers, Plaintiff is acting to preserve valuable and important property, statutory, and legal rights, through injunctive, declaratory, and equitable relief issued by this Court before such claims are forever barred by adoption of Instagram’s New Terms,” the filing said. “For this reason, even though the New Terms are not yet effective, this case is ‘ripe’ for adjudication.”
Step On It Already! It’s about time—Toyota Motor Corp has agreed to a $1.1 billion settlement of a pending defective products class action lawsuit.
The Toyota class action lawsuit stemmed from complaints that a flaw in Toyota’s electronic throttle-control system, and not ill-fitting floor mats and sticky accelerator pedals, were to blame for unwanted acceleration of Toyota vehicles, which caused drivers to lose control and crash.
According to the terms of the settlement, as reported by the Wall Street Journal, Toyota will pay $1.1 billion to install new safety equipment and reimburse as many as 16 million customers.
BP’s cost of doing business? A $7.8 billion settlement against BP PLC has been approved by a federal judge, resolving economic and medical claims brought by more than 100,000 businesses and individuals who suffered from the massive BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in April, 2010.
According to the terms of the settlement, approved by US District Judge Carl Barbier, there is no cap on the financial compensation—so the amount could be more or less than the estimated $7.8 billion, with the exception of $2.3 billion put aside to cover seafood-related claims by commercial fishing vessel owners, captains and deckhands.
The explosion of BP’s Macondo well that resulted in the worst oil spill in the history of the US, killed 11 rig workers and released over 200 million gallons of oil, closing much of the Gulf for months to commercial and recreational fishing and shrimping. While much litigation remains, this agreement provides for people and businesses in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and some coastal counties in eastern Texas and western Florida, and in adjacent Gulf waters and bays.
According to a report in the Kansas City Star Judge Barbier said the settlement averts worries that litigation could continue for 15 to 20 years, as it did after the Exxon Valdez and Amoco Cadiz oil spills, creating a secondary disaster for those affected. The Star also notes that no ruling has been made on a medical settlement for cleanup workers and others who say exposure to oil or dispersants made them sick.
Still unresolved are environmental damage claims brought by the federal government and Gulf Coast states against BP and its partners on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, and claims against Switzerland-based rig owner Transocean Ltd., and Houston-based cement contractor Halliburton.
A trial is scheduled for next year, to identify the causes of BP’s blowout and assign percentages of fault to the companies involved.
Judge Barbier wrote that lawyers’ fees will not be taken from the settlements: BP has agreed to pay them separately.
I’ll drink to that! And on that note—Happy New Year—here’s to a peaceful and prosperous 2013!
The weekly wrap-up of class action lawsuits and class action settlements, for the week ending March 17, 2012.
Top Class ActionsBut 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.
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!
A weekly wrap of the latest class action lawsuits and settlements, for the week ending March 9, 2012.
Top Class ActionsCall 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.
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!
