Emerging Issues

Week Adjourned: 8.30.13 – Estee Lauder, HP, NFL

Top class action lawsuits for the week; top stories include Estee Lauder false advertising, HP defective products, and the NFL concussion settlement.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Legal Wrinkle for Estee Lauder? Estee Lauder has come under fire this week, for claiming it’s Advanced Night Repair skin care products can make you look younger… Bottom line, Donna Tomasino of New York has filed a consumer fraud class action lawsuit against the cosmetics company, alleging Lauder practices misleading advertising regarding its Advanced Night Repair skin care products suggesting that the products promote DNA repair and other anti-aging effects.

The Estee Lauder class action, entitled Donna Tomasino v. The Estee Lauder Cos. Inc., et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-04692, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, claims that Tomasino purchased Estee Lauder’s Advanced Night Repair Synchronized Recovery Complex and Advanced Night Repair Eye Synchronized Complex because of claims made by the company’s advertisements. However, Tomasino claims, there is no product testing to back up the alleged anti-aging claims.

“The clinical studies and other data that Estee Lauder represents as supportive of the claimed efficacy results are nothing more than a continuation of defendants’ misleading practices—each of the studies is designed to be used in the marketing materials to support the claimed efficacy and defendants know that consumers will not see the results these studies purportedly represent,” the lawsuit states.

Tomasino also alleges Estee Lauder created the claims in its advertising campaign for the Advanced Night Repair products even though the company knows the advertising claims are false. And, because EL is allegedly motivated by profit, it deliberately misleads its customers into believing that the products have anti-aging effects so that they will spend a higher price for the Advanced Night Repair line of products.

“In sum, Estee Lauder dupes consumers with false and misleading promises of product results based on purported scientific discoveries that it knows it cannot deliver. Estee Lauder does so with one goal in mind, reaping enormous profits at the expense of consumers,” the Estee Lauder skin cream class action lawsuit states.

If your wrinkles haven’t disappeared with the use of these products, you may be interested in signing up.

HP Communication Breakdown? Also in consumer fraud spotlight this week—Hewlett Packard. Apparently their wireless printers are not good at communicating with computers. Filed in California federal court by plaintiff Vincent Ferranti, the HP defective products lawsuit, entitled Vincent Ferranti v. Hewlett Packard Co., Case No. 5:13-cv-03847, alleges that Ferranti purchased two HP wireless printers, both of which were found to contain faulty receivers, which negatively affected the printers in that they were unable to maintain consistent connections with the computers.

Ferranti further alleges users of HP wireless printers are forced to plug the printer into a computer in order to print something. “The HP printers’ wireless connectivity intermittently stops working for no reason,” the class action lawsuit states.

The HP printer lawsuit names HP’s Officejet Pro 8500 and 8600 Wireless All-in-One printers as defective, and states that HP either knew or should have been aware of the connectivity issue on or before April 2009. Ferranti further alleges HP “actively concealed” the defect from consumers and continues to sell these printers without warning consumers “that the printer’s wireless function was defective and would fail with normal use.”

The lawsuit seeks to represent a class of thousands of consumers who purchased or leased the HP Officejet Pro 8500 or 8600 Wireless All-in-One printers.

Top Settlements

Heads up NFL! (pardon the pun). A landmark settlement has been reached between 4,500 former football players, their families and the National Football League (NFL) this week, ending a deceptive business practices class action focusing on the impact of concussions on the brain.

“It’s been a struggle to get to this point, but today I will say I’m very proud that the NFL has decided to stand up for all the former players who are suffering from brain injuries,” Kevin Turner, a former NFL running back who has been diagnosed with ALS, said during a teleconference. “Today is so important for those who are…hurting. This will bring help for them today.”

The NFL concussion settlement, according to reports from CNN.com requires the NFL to pay $765 million to fund medical exams, concussion-related compensation, medical research for retired NFL players and their families, and litigation expenses.

The settlement, filed in US District Court in Philadelphia, is pending final court approval.

Former U.S. District Judge Layn Phillips, the mediator in the lawsuit, called the settlement “a historic agreement, one that will make sure that former NFL players who need and deserve compensation will receive it, and that will promote safety for players at all levels of football.”

“My hope is that any players or ex-players that are suffering, or begin to suffer, from symptoms of dementia, will be taken care of in a respectable manner through this settlement,” said Chris Dronett, one of the plaintiffs, whose husband Shane Dronett committed suicide in 2009 at age 38. Scientists found evidence of chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE, in Shane’s brain after his death, CNN.com reported.

The lawsuit alleged that the NFL led a deliberate misinformation campaign—primarily through its Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Committee—to deny scientific data being presented in the medical community about health risks associated with concussion. And, the lawsuit claimed, that misinformation, trickled down to players so that they were unaware of the real nature of the risks they were taking while playing football.

Included in the settlement is the establishment of a $675 million fund to compensate players who have suffered brain injury, or their families; a maximum of $75 million for retired players’ medical exams, which could be used to diagnose future neurodegenerative disease; and $10 million devoted to research and education. The funds will be dispersed over the next 20 years.

Well done, and not a moment too soon.

Ok Folks, That’s all for this week. Enjoy that 3-day weekend and we’ll see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 7.26.13 – Huggies Diapers, Mini Cooper, Major Asbestos Verdict

Top class action lawsuit wrap for the week ending July 26, 2013. Top lawsuits include Huggies Natural Diapers and Wipes, Mini Cooper defective auto claims, and the largest consolidated asbestos verdict in NY history.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Maybe Huggies Not So Tree-Hugging After All? ….Huggies maker, Kimberly-Clark Corp, is facing a consumer fraud class action over allegations the company promotes its disposable diapers and baby wipes as “natural” baby products, when they are not only environmentally unfriendly, but also contain dangerous toxins.

Filed by lead plaintiffs Dianna Jou and Jaynry Young, the Huggies diapers class action lawsuit, entitled Jou, et al. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., Case No. 13-cv-03075, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that Kimberly-Clark profits through misleading information about its Huggies baby wipes and diapers, by capitalizing on consumer demand for organic, environmentally friendly, natural products.

The lawsuit contends that Huggies diapers are made with potentially harmful ingredients and that Huggies Natural Wipes contain two chemicals that have been either banned or restricted in other countries because they are considered hazardous to human health.

Specifically, the class action lawsuit alleges Huggies Natural Wipes are made with methylisothiazolinone, a chemical, the plaintiffs maintain, is associated with skin toxicity, immune disruption and allergic reactions. The substance, which may also act as a neurotoxin, has been restricted for use in cosmetics in Japan and Canada, according to the complaint.

“That the products are not natural, yet marketed and distinguished primarily upon this characteristic, is sufficiently deceiving to the customer,” the Huggies lawsuit claims. “The fact that evidence tends to indicate that products’ contents, in current and past iterations, may be hazardous only highlights the defendant’s deception. “Further, the plaintiffs claim Huggies Natural Wipes also contain sodium methylparaben, a substance which allegedly acts as an endocrine disruptor, immune toxicant and allergen, and has been banned entirely in the European Union. According to the lawsuit, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration limits the use of parabens in food and drinks, and, in an Environmental Working Group report cited by the plaintiffs the substance can reportedly “strip skin of pigment.”

Additionally, the plaintiffs contend that Huggies Natural Diapers are not a great deal different from standard diaper products because while they contain organic cotton, it is used on the outside of the diapers, and therefore never actually comes into contact with the baby. Jou and Young also claim that the liners of the diapers also contain several of the same unnatural, potentially harmful ingredients used in the company’s standard diapers, including polypropylene and sodium polyacrylate, therefore, they are not environmentally friendly.

“Defendant’s prominent representations on the packaging for the products deceptively mislead consumers into believing that Kimberly-Clark offers two natural, environmentally sound, and relatively safer product alternatives to traditional offerings,” the plaintiffs said. “While superficial differences do exist, these immaterial changes do not come close to matching a consumer’s reasonable expectation resulting from the company’s advertised benefits.”

Jou and Young are suing on behalf of a class of consumers across the country who bought Huggies Natural Wipes or Natural Diapers since December 2006, asserting violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, the Environmental Marketing Claims Act, Unfair Competition Law and the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Top Settlements

Sadly, a Settlement for the Record Books. An asbestos verdict of $190 million has been awarded in a lawsuit brought by five men, three of whom are now deceased, who were exposed to asbestos-tainted products and equipment during their jobs as steamfitters, plumbers, and construction workers.

A panel of New York Supreme Court jurors found the two defendant companies had acted negligently and recklessly, then rendering a verdict worth a total of $190 million, the largest consolidated asbestos verdict in New York history. It is believed that the $60 million individual amounts two of the men received are the largest individual sums awarded in a New York asbestos case.

The jury found both defendants—boiler companies Cleaver Brooks and Burnham—negligent in having failed to warn about the dangers of the asbestos used in connection with their equipment. The verdict said both companies had acted with reckless disregard for human life.

All five of the plaintiffs were tradesmen from the New York tri-state area.

One man, from Toms River, NJ, worked in the 1950s and 1960s as a pipefitter in the Brooklyn Navy Yard. He was exposed to asbestos daily while fitting pipes into the salt-water distilling units aboard aircraft carriers like the USS Constellation and USS Independence.

Another, from Oyster Bay, NY, worked for nearly 30 years as a plumber, handling dozens of different types of products contaminated with asbestos.

A third, of Middle Village, NY, was also exposed to asbestos working as a plumber in Brooklyn, Queens, and Rockland County.

Another man, from Howard Beach, NY, was exposed to asbestos on the job as a painter and construction worker. He was involved with the removal and demolition of boilers containing asbestos-laden parts.

The final client, from Kent, CT, also worked with boilers and boiler parts in the course of his job as a steamfitter.

All five men developed asbestos mesothelioma as a result of asbestos exposure. Three have died of complications related to the disease.

The trial (Index Nos. 190008/12, 190026/12, 190200/12, 190183/12, 190184/12) was held in New York Supreme Court before Judge Joan Madden.

Mini Makes Good….A preliminary settlement of a defective automotive class action has been approved, potentially ending the lawsuit pending against BMW over allegations the German auto-maker concealed a defect in the transmission of its Mini Cooper cars. But there a couple of details that BMW needs to clear up before the settlement is granted final approval.

US District Judge Philip S. Gutierrez, who is hearing the Mini Cooper complaint, (Aarons v. BMW of North America LLC, Case No. 11-cv-07667, in the US District Court for the Central District of California), has requested additional information about the class size and suggested some revisions to the existing preliminary settlement. However, if the Mini Cooper settlement is approved , thousands of Mini Cooper owners could be eligible to receive as much as $9,000 for vehicle repairs.

According to attorneys representing the plaintiffs, approximately 1,200 Mini Cooper owners had to have their transmissions replaced at BMW dealerships. However, many drivers took their Mini Coopers to a third-party facility for repair, and that number is not known.

The Mini Cooper lawsuit claims that the transmission defect, which can cause significant delays in acceleration, loss of forward propulsion and total transmission failure while driving, was concealed from Mini Cooper customers, by BMW. However, BMW, at the same time, allegedly issued bulletins to BMW dealerships acknowledging the defect. The transmission defects also included the failure of the transmission without warning. These failures and defects may have contributed to traffic accidents resulting in serious injury or death.

The plaintiffs further claim that in an effort to keep the prices of the Mini Coopers low, BMW sacrificed quality, thereby making cars of a substandard quality and putting consumers at risk.

Ok Folks, Have a safe and happy weekend—see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 7.19.13 – MyFord, Lac-Megantic, Nissan

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 Lawsuits

MyGosh, 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.

Top Settlements

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!

Week Adjourned: 7.12.13 – Ford, BofA Mortgages, Ticketmaster

The top class actions and settlements for the week ending July 12, 2013. This week’s highlights include Ford hybrids, Bank of America loan modifications and Ticketmaster Entertainment Rewards program.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Heads-up all you Ford Hybrid owners. A defective automotive class action lawsuit has been filed against Ford alleging the car manufacturer’s hybrid sedans can shut down without warning. Not good!

Specifically, the Ford Hybrid class action claims that because of a flaw in the engine-cooling systems, two of Ford’s hybrid sedans can shut down without warning while traveling at highway speeds. The lawsuit further claims that Ford has known of the defects since 2005 based on pre-release testing data, consumer complaints, warranty reimbursement rates and data from Ford dealerships.

The Ford lawsuit claims the defects are present in the 2005 through 2008 models of the Ford Escape Hybrid and the 2006 through 2008 models of the Mercury Mariner. These models were the first hybrid crossovers to be released by a US car manufacturer.

The backstory: Filed by lead plaintiff Jean MacDonald, the lawsuit, entitled MacDonald v. Ford Motor Co., Case No. 3:13-cv-02988, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges MacDonald purchased a new 2007 Ford Escape hybrid from a California dealership and put more than 43,000 miles on it without incident. Then, in December 2012, the car’s “Stop Safely Now” light went on and the vehicle went powerless in the middle of the freeway.

A dealership determined the vehicle there was a malfunction of a cooling pump associated with the MECS, and replaced it at a cost of $767. The MECS (Motor Electric Cooling System) is used in the Ford hybrids to diffuse the heat generated by the hybrid vehicles’ battery-powered motor component. The MECS releases hot air into the atmosphere. To prevent the vehicles from sustaining damage from the heat, the vehicles are designed to shut down whenever the MECS becomes inoperative.

According to the lawsuit, Ford’s MECS coolant pumps are “substantially certain” to fail suddenly and without warning, causing the vehicle to shut down immediately. Because the engine shutdown can occur while the vehicle is traveling at highway speeds, drivers may find themselves in an extremely dangerous situation.

“The coolant pump causes unsafe conditions in the class vehicles, including but not limited to abrupt losses of acceleration, inability to manoeuvre the vehicle due to reduced speed, slowed steering, and in certain cases, complete vehicle failure,” the lawsuit states. This sudden engine failure can leave a driver stranded in the middle of a busy highway if a shoulder cannot be reached before the vehicle comes to a complete stop.

“Defendant knew about and concealed the coolant pump defect present in every class vehicle, along with the attendant dangerous safety and driveability problems, from plaintiff and class members, at the time of sale, lease and repair,” the Ford complaint states.

In bulletins issued by Ford, the company issued instructions on how Ford mechanics were to replace the allegedly defective coolant pump with a nondefective model, but the carmaker has allegedly told consumers that they are on the hook for the costs of a new system rather than repairing it under warranty.

“Instead of repairing the defect in the MECS coolant system, Ford either refused to acknowledge their existence, or performed ineffectual repairs that simply masked the effect,” according to the lawsuit.

The Ford class action lawsuit seeks to represent a nationwide class of buyers and lessees of the allegedly defective Escape and Mariner models, as well as a subclass of California-based customers under the state’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

Bank of America—at it again? If you hold a BoFA mortgage, read this: A consumer banking deceptive practices class action lawsuit has been filed alleging that Bank of America (NYSE:BAC) created and headed an illegal enterprise designed to defraud homeowners seeking loan modifications as part of the government’s Home Affordable Modification Program, or “HAMP.”

The BofA loan modification class action, filed in US District Court in Colorado on July 10, alleges that Bank of America masterminded a scheme which allowed it to deny help it had promised to give thousands of its customers in exchange for $45 billion it took in bailout funds.

“We believe that Bank of America gamed the system, perpetrating a fraud on both its customers and American taxpayers,” said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman and one of the attorneys who filed the lawsuit. “BofA promised that it would work with homeowners to modify their mortgages under the HAMP program. Instead it took $45 billion in taxpayer money and fought as hard as it could to avoid granting modifications, squeezing every last dollar from its customers and wrongfully foreclosing thousands of people’s homes in the process.”

The lawsuit alleges that Bank of America employed contractors, including co-defendant Urban Lending Solutions (“Urban”), who repeatedly lied to Bank of America’s customers. For instance, the suit claims that Urban employees answered the phone, “Bank of America – Office of the President,” when they did not work directly for Bank of America.

Former employees, according to the complaint, have confirmed that Bank of America instructed its employees to delay modifications, claim that it had not received paperwork and payments when it had received them, and declined modifications en masse in periods known internally as “blitzes.”

The complaint also alleges that Bank of America went to great lengths to keep its employees silent about these issues. According to the BofA class action, employees who questioned the ethics of declining modifications for fraudulent reasons, or of lying to customers, were subject to discipline including termination.

The lawsuit claims that Bank of America is guilty of violating the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO. It asks for damages to be awarded to a proposed class defined as:

“All individuals whose home mortgage loans have been serviced by BOA and who, since April 13, 2009, (1) applied to BOA for a HAMP loan modification, (2) fulfilled an FHA Trial Period Plan Agreement or any other trial-payment agreement that was not issued pursuant to SD-09 (form 3156), (3) sent documents to, or received documents or other communications from, Urban employees in connection with their attempts to modify their home mortgage, and (4) did not receive, within 30 days after making all required trial payments, a permanent loan modification that complied with HAMP rules.”

Top Settlements

This one’s on Ticketmaster! A proposed settlement has been reached in the Ticketmaster consumer fraud class action lawsuit which alleges the company deceptively enrolled website visitors into an “Entertainment Rewards” program.

The Ticketmaster lawsuit, entitled John Mancini, et al. v. Ticketmaster, et al., Case No. 7-cv-01459 DSF, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, alleges that Defendants enrolled customers of Ticketmaster.com into the “Entertainment Rewards” program through a process that was likely to deceive reasonable consumers. In particular, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants did not adequately disclose that customers were being enrolled in an online coupon service and that they would be charged a monthly fee for that service, typically $9, on the credit or debit card they used at Ticketmaster.com.

Plaintiffs further allege that the vast majority of enrollees who were charged for the Entertainment Rewards program did not use the program or otherwise benefit from it. Excluding customers who have previously obtained a full refund, Plaintiffs allege that there are approximately 1,120,000 such customers and that the total paid by these customers (net of partial refunds) for membership in Entertainment Rewards was approximately $85 million. Plaintiffs assert violations of California and federal law.

Class Members eligible for part of the Ticketmaster settlement include all US residents who: made a purchase on Ticketmaster.com between September 27, 2004 and June 9, 2009: were enrolled in the “Entertainment Rewards” discount coupon program via a process that included Ticketmaster’s transfer of their credit or debit card information to Entertainment Publications, Inc,: were subsequently charged for their membership in the Entertainment Rewards program: did not receive a full refund of amounts charged, and as of May 8, 2013, have not printed any coupon or applied for any cashback award in connection with the Entertainment Rewards program.

Eligible class members will receive a cash refund of the amounts they paid for membership in the Entertainment Rewards program (other than amounts that have already been refunded), up to a maximum of $30, however this is dependent on the number of successful claims filed.

A final hearing is set for July 29, 2013, and if approved, the settlement will resolve the lawsuit against Ticketmaster, Entertainment Publications, Inc. and IAC/InterActiveCorp (“Defendants”) brought by several Ticketmaster customers (“Plaintiffs”).

Complete information and claim forms are available at www.EntertainmentRewardsSettlement.com.

Ok folks, Have a great weekend—see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 7.5.13 – Kendra Wilkinson AbCuts, BofA, BP Bad Gas

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. This week, top stories include Kendra Wilkinson and AbCuts diet supplements, Bank of America debt collection harassment, and BP contaminated gas.

Top Lawsuits

The Girls Next Door are in trouble—well—one of them at any rate. Kendra Wilkinson, the former star of “The Girls Next Door” and “Kendra,” is facing a consumer fraud class action lawsuit over allegations she advertised a fat loss supplement that is ineffective and possibly dangerous to people’s health. The other named defendants are marketer Corr-Jensen Inc, and nutritional supplement retailer GNC Corp.

Adam Karhu filed the Kendra Wilkinson weight loss lawsuit, alleging the diet supplement “Ab Cuts” (Abdominal Cuts) fat loss supplement was advertised by Wilkinson as “a health supplement, not a diet pill,” which was false and misleading. Ok people, really? In what universe does the name Ab Cuts sound like a health supplement?

Entitled Karhu v. Corr-Jensen Labs Inc. et al., Case No. 13-cv-03583, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the lawsuit specifically claims that Wilkinson promotes Ab Cuts on her website and through Facebook and Twitter, in addition to appearing on almost all product promotions, including appearances on talk show appearances and in celebrity magazines. According to the lawsuit, Wilkinson makes paid appearances at GNC stores across the country, claiming that Ab Cuts is her “I-Cheat-Every-Day Diet.” Note to Kendra: careful what you say…this lawsuit may give new meaning to “cheat”…)

The Ab Cuts product line has 11 different dietary supplement products all made with the same active ingredient, conjugated linoleic acid (“CLA”). According to the product advertising, CLA promotes fat and weight loss. But—according to the lawsuit, the science just ain’t there. In fact, the complaint alleges that CLA may actually increase the risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and hypertension. That sounds healthy!

Putative members of the Kendra Wilkinson diet lawsuit include anyone in the US who bought Ab Cuts, excluding people who purchased the products for resale. The AbCuts lawsuit alleges breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, violation of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, and for violation of New York’s consumer protection laws.

Bank of America (BoFA) got nailed this week, with a debt collection harassment class action lawsuit alleging America’s biggest bank is in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act. Add this to the list of possible legal digressions.

Filed by Broward County resident Marc Katz, the lawsuit, entitled, Marc Katz v. Bank of America NA, case number 0:13-cv-61372, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florid, alleges BoFA uses automated dialers to call the cell phones of people who have debt with the bank. That would certainly raise your blood pressure.

Specifically, Katz claims that in 2010 BoFA launched a mortgage foreclosure action against him in Florida state court. The bank then continued to call his cellphone using automated dialing systems in an effort to try and collect the purported debt. This occurred even after the bank was told to contact Katz’s attorney for anything related to the foreclosure action, according to the lawsuit.

“Despite receipt of a letter of representation, and its inherent cease communication directive, defendant’s continued collection efforts involved the placement of auto-dialed calls and/or recorded messages to the cellular telephones of allegedly delinquent consumers,” the debt collection harassment class action lawsuit states.

Further, Katz claims that when he answered the calls a machine-operated voice would advise him to “please hold for the next available representative,” forcing him to wait and listen to music or “dead air” before an actual person came on the line, the lawsuit states. “Defendant’s persistent and unlawful calling campaign was carried out with the intent to abuse and harass the plaintiff,” the lawsuit claims.

Heads up—the lawsuit has been filed on behalf of a putative class consisting of all individuals in Florida who were the subject of Bank of America’s debt collection activities related to their residential property in Florida and who were represented by counsel with respect to said debt and still received pre-recorded or auto-dialed calls on their cellphones from the bank over the past four years.

Top Settlements

Did you buy dodgy gas from BP? If so, you may be in line for some cash. The petrochemical giant (BP Products North America Inc), reached a $7 million defective product settlement concerning allegations it sold contaminated gasoline. Contaminated gasoline? Don’t get me started.

According to a statement issued on the settlement, the BP contaminated gas lawsuit was filed after BP recalled approximately 4.7 million gallons of contaminated gasoline, which it distributed from its Whiting, Indiana, refinery to more than 575 retail outlets in Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin and Ohio.

Various problems, ranging from engine issues to damaged fuel systems, resulted from the use of the contaminated gasoline, affecting thousands of customers. According to the statement, people who are eligible for a portion of the settlement will be notified in the near future…

Ok folks, Happy July 4 Weekend! See you at the bar!

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

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

Top Class Action Lawsuits

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

Hmm.

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

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

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

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

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

Top Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Week Adjourned: 6.14.13 – Class Action against Obama?

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

Top Class Action Lawsuits

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

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

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

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

Here we go!

Top Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Image: northjersey.com)

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

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

Top Class Action Lawsuits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

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

Week Adjourned: 5.31.13 – Twinings Tea, Apple, Wellbutrin

The top class action lawsuits for the week ending May 31, 2013. Top stories include Twinings Tea, Apple and Wellbutrin.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

“What’s in Your Cuppa?” Not what you think, if the allegations brought in a consumer fraud class action against Twinings North America prove true.

In fact, the Twinings lawsuit claims the tea company has falsely represented the health benefits of more than 50 different blends of its teas. Crikey!

Lead plaintiff Nancy Lanovaz, who filed the lawsuit, claims she paid a premium price for Twinings’ green and black tea and would not have purchased it without the allegedly unlawful labeling that the tea is a “natural source of antioxidants.”

Twinings filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, however, US District Judge Ronald M. Whyte has now ruled that the potential class action may move forward stating that that 51 of the 53 tea blends that Lanovaz claims are falsely labeled are made from the same camellia sinensis plant and are therefore the same product.

“Because the claims for 51 of the varieties of tea are based upon the exact same label describing the same product, camellia sinensis, the court finds that Lanovaz has standing to sue on behalf of the purchasers of these teas and thus denies Twinings’ motion with respect to these products,” Judge Whyte wrote. “Red tea, on the other hand, is made from a different plant and is thus a significantly different product.”

The consumer fraud class action lawsuit alleging false advertising of Twinings teas claims the company violated California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

Top Settlements

Apple Gets Bitten. Time for this week’s litigation update on Apple Inc—the company is seemingly dogged by consumer fraud and defective product lawsuits right now. But this week, we have a proposed settlement to report—it’s been all over mainstream media—Apple has agreed to pay $53 million in settlement of a defective products class action lawsuit alleging the tech giant used faulty indicators showing that iPhones and iPods were exposed to water, to deny customers’ warranty claims.

According to court documents regarding the settlement, eligible consumers could receive up to $300 depending on the device model they owned. Bloomberg reports that lawyers for consumers say the liquid submersion indicators on iPhones and iPods could be triggered by moisture during ordinary use and falsely indicated devices had been damaged by liquid spills or submersion, problems that were excluded from coverage under Apple’s warranty. Apple has denied the allegations, defending its indicators as reliable.

Customers whose warranty claims for iPhones were denied before December 31, 2009, on the basis of Apple’s liquid damage policy and claims for iPod Touches that were denied before June 2010 are eligible for settlement funds. Attorneys can seek as much as 30 percent of the $53 million settlement fund for their fees and expenses, Bloomberg reports.

FYI—The settlement is subject to court approval. So watch this space—we’ll keep you posted.

Last Call for Wellbutrin Claims…Heads up—if you purchased Wellbutrin—today is the last day—May 31—to object to or drop out of this class action, because an $11.75 million settlement has been tentatively agreed in the Wellbutrin XL antitrust class action filed against Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc, and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). If you bought Wellbutrin XL® or its Generic equivalent, the proposed class action settlement could affect you.

This matter is a lawsuit against Valeant Pharmaceuticals, Inc., formerly Biovail Corp. (“Biovail”), and SmithKline Beecham Corporation doing business as GlaxoSmithKline and GlaxoSmithKline plc (collectively “GSK”) (together with Biovail, “Defendants”), the companies that manufactured and marketed the antidepressant Wellbutrin XL.

The lawsuit, entitled In re: Wellbutrin XL Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 8-cv-2433, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleges the pharmaceutical manufacturers worked together to delay the availability of less expensive, generic versions of Wellbutrin XL. Anyone who purchased Wellbutrin XL or its generic equivalent in the following states may be eligible to claim part of the settlement, if it is approved: California, Florida, Nevada, New York, Tennessee and/or Wisconsin.

For additional information regarding this lawsuit, proposed settlement, and for obtaining a Claim, visit: http://www.wxlclassaction.com/. Claim form submissions for this class action are due July 12, 2013.

A fairness hearing is set for June 18 at which time the proposed settlement will either be approved—or not.

Okee doke—that’s it for this week—happy weekend—see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 4.26.13 – Vitamin Shoppe, Acer, Sony TV

The weekly top class action lawsuit & settlement wrap for the week ending April 26, 2013. Top class actions include Vitamin Shoppe, Acer and Sony.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

True Athlete Training Formula Making Some Untrue Claims? Em, maybe. At least the folks who filed a consumer fraud class action lawsuit against Vitamin Shoppe Inc, who make and market a pre-workout muscle building and performance enhancing product called True Athlete Training Formula, believe so.

The True Athlete class action lawsuit, entitled Steven Hodges v. Vitamin Shoppe Inc., Case No. 13-cv-02849, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, contends that the Vitamin Shoppe “knowingly and/or recklessly ignored” all relevant scientific evidence which shows that L-Arginine Alpha Ketoglutarate, the main ingredient in True Athlete Training Formula, does not enhance athletic performance, build muscle, or improve cardiovascular function, as advertised. Well, it does sound a bit too good to be true. But hey—I’m an optimist.

However…the lawsuit also contends that the defendant “knowingly under-doses the remaining active ingredients to save money but still entice consumers by using efficacy claims for the compounds Creatine Monohydrate, Beta-Alanine (as Carnosyn), and AstraGin”, compounds well-known within the sports industry, according to the class action lawsuit. Specifically, the lawsuit states: “Defendant unapologetically, and with no remorse, boasts the inclusion of these popular ingredients in the Product, and then under doses them in the formula to make the Product useless.” And: “The inclusion of the ingredients at levels under the clinical dosage is nothing more than a new tactic at selling consumers ‘snake oil.’” Snake oil? I’ve had that stuff before!

Here’s the straight dope…the consumer fraud class action was filed on behalf of a proposed class of all California residents who purchased True Athlete Training Formula from the Vitamin Shoppe within the last four years.

Top Settlements

How’s your RAM these days? That would be Random Access Memory—the kind in your computer…(I don’t know about you, but the kind in my head is full and dates back to last century.) Well, it seems that Acer has decided to end a consumer fraud class action lawsuit alleging its RAM wasn’t up to the job either.

The official scoop on the Acer RAM class action— “The parties have reached a settlement in a nationwide class action lawsuit alleging that Acer America Corporation (“Acer”) advertised and sold Acer notebook computers that did not contain enough Random Access Memory (“RAM”) to support certain pre-installed versions of the Microsoft Windows Vista operating system. Acer denies the claims, but has agreed to the Settlement to avoid the costs and risks of a trial.“

And yes folks—you are a member of the class if you are a US resident who purchased a new Acer notebook computer that: (1) came pre-installed with a MicrosoftWindows Vista Home Premium, Business, or Ultimate operating system; (2) came with 1 gigabyte (“GB”) of RAM or less as shared memory for both the system and graphics; (3) was purchased from an authorized retailer; and (4) was not returned for a refund.

Class Members may claim either: (a) a 16GB USB Flash Drive with ReadyBoost technology; (b) a check for $10.00; (c) a check for up to $100.00 for reimbursement of any repair costs that were incurred before April 25, 2013 in an effort to resolve performance issues related to insufficient RAM; or (d) for Class Members who still own their computer, a 1GB or 2GB laptop memory DIMM that will allow the Acer notebook to operate with 2GB of RAM.

Any class member may seek to be excluded from the settlement by filing a notice of “opt out.” Class Members who remain in the settlement, either by submitting a claim or doing nothing, have the right to object to the settlement or ask to speak at the hearing. Opt out notices, objections, and any requests to appear are due by July 24, 2013. In order to get any benefits from the settlement, Class Members must submit a Claim Form by July 24, 2013. Claim forms will also be mailed and emailed to those class members for whom Acer has contact information. For more information about the settlement or to file a claim, visit www.AcerLawsuit.com.

Sony Display Resolution Class Action Resolved…And while we’re on the subject of technology—remember this one? The Sony Grand Wega SXRD rear-projection television defective products class action? (Sony Electronics, entitled Date v. Sony Electronics, Inc. & ABC Appliance, Inc., Case No. 07 CV 15474,United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan). Filed some time ago, granted, it does appear that a resolution may finally be in sight.

A proposed settlement has been granted preliminary approval, which includes all United States end user consumers who purchased, or received as a gift from the original retail purchaser, a KDS-R5OXBR1 or KDS-R6OXBR1 television.

The backstory—short version—allegations that Sony et al falsely advertised the display resolution of its Sony Grand Wega SXRD rear-projection television models KDS-R5OXBR1 and KDS-R6OXBR1, because the televisions were incapable of accepting input of 1080p signals and could not accept and display video content at 1080p resolution via the televisions’ PC and HDMI Input. Not good.

Here’s what you need to know if you are eligible for part of the settlement:

All class members who send in a valid claim form establishing that they own both (1) one of these televisions and (2) a 1080p output device like a Blu-ray player or 1080p-capable laptop computer or gaming device will be eligible to receive a $60.00 gift card that does not expire and is redeemable for the purchase of any item available on the store.sony.com website or at a Sony retail store.

If you do not own a 1080p output device, you will not be eligible to receive a benefit, but you will remain in the settlement class (and release your claims in this litigation, all of which relate to the 1080p capabilities of the televisions) unless you choose to opt out of the settlement.

All claim forms must be received by the claims administrator at the address provided in the claim form by no later than June 10, 2013 to be valid. To download claim forms, review your rights and find out more information on the settlement, visit http://esupport.sony.com.

Ok—that’s a wrap. See you at that bar…and Happy Friday Folks!