Week Adjourned - Part 31

Week Adjourned: 5.4.12 – iTunes, Asbestos, Yaz Birth Control

Top Class Action Lawsuits and Settlements for the week ending May 4, 2012. Top stories include iTunes Class Action, Asbestos Mesothelioma lawsuit settlement and Yaz settlements.

Top Class Actions

“Whataya Want from Me”—how about a refund! Is Apple taking a bite out of you? Robert Herskowitz thinks they might be. He filed a federal consumer fraud class action lawsuit against Apple this week, alleging iTunes double bills for purchases from its e-Stores and refuses to issue refunds to customers who are affected. Nice.

In his iTunes lawsuit, Herskowitz claims he bought a single song from the iTunes store for $1.29, for which Apple charged him twice. According to the lawsuit, when he brought the error to Apple’s attention, he says, the company responded: “Your request for ‘Whataya Want from Me’ was carefully considered; however, according to the iTunes Store Terms of Sale, all purchases made on the iTunes store are ineligible for refund. This policy matches Apple’s refund policies and provides protection for copyrighted materials.”

Herskowitz says the agreement governing use of Apples’ e-Stores “says no such thing.” He claims the policy has “resulted in substantial numbers of Apple customers throughout the country having been double billed by Apple.” Instead, the lawsuit claims that Apple’s refund policy, in the Terms and Conditions to which every customer must agree to make purchases on Apple’s e-stores, states that Apple does not provide refunds in the event of a price reduction or promotional offering. Accordingly, by its own terms, “Apple’s ‘no refund’ policy is limited to ‘the event of a price reduction or promotional offering.'”

The complaint adds: “Under the agreement, as with any consumer transaction, Apple may bill customers only once for each product or service that is purchased. With troubling regularity, however, Apple has ‘double billed’ customers for purchases made through the Apple Stores. In those cases, when a customer purchases a song, movie or book, Apple bills that customer twice for the same download. Apple, however, has effectuated a policy and practice of refusing to refund the extra charge to customers whom it has overbilled.” Therefore, the lawsuit alleges, Apple violates its own terms of agreement as well as California state and common laws.

Furthermore, Herskowitz claims that Apple follows the same illegal policy at its App store, iBookstore and he Mac App store. Herskowitz is seeking damages of more than $5 million for a national class.

Thank goodness for people who check their bills and read the fine print!

Top Settlements

“Highly Reprehensible” indeed. And it’s about time somebody came out and said it. This week, a California Appeals Court judge ruled that a $4.5 million punitive damages award in an asbestos mesothelioma lawsuit will be allowed to stand—that it is not excessive, and that the conduct of ArvinMeritor, the defendant in the asbestos lawsuit, and successor of brake shoe manufacturer Rockwell, was “highly reprehensible.”

“By the 1960s, ArvinMeritor knew that workers exposed to asbestos dust were at risk of developing asbestos-related diseases,” the judge wrote. “Indeed, in 1973 and again in 1975, it wrote letters to (Pneumo Abex) and other manufacturers complaining about the presence of asbestos dust in the brake linings it was receiving from them. Nonetheless, ArvinMeritor did not place any warnings on its products until the early 1980s, and continued to market asbestos-containing brakes until its inventory of them was exhausted sometime in the early 1990s.”

The justice noted that ArvinMeritor did not include a specific reference to cancer on its products until 1987. Gordon Bankhead, who filed the ArvinMeritor asbestos lawsuit, had worked at automotive maintenance facilities from 1965-1999. He died of mesothelioma in 2009.

A jury found ArvinMeritor 15 percent at fault for Bankhead’s death and suffering, putting it on the hook for $375,000 of a $2.5 million noneconomic damages award. The company was joint and severally liable for all of the $1.47 million in compensatory damages. A separate trial resulted in the $4.5 million punitive damages award.

Bayer AG, the manufacturer of Yaz/Yasmin birth control pills, has announced that it has settled 651 US Yasmin blood clot lawsuits for a total, so far, of $142 million. This makes the average settlement about $218,000 a case.

The lawsuits allege that Yasmin/Yas oral contraceptives cause blood clots in the women taking the pills, and in some cases they have proved fatal. The lawsuits also allege that the blood clots can lead to heart attacks and strokes.

According to Bloomberg News, on April 10, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ordered Bayer and other makers of birth control pills to strengthen blood-clot warnings on their products. Consequently, oral contraceptives that contain a synthetic hormone called drospirenone will have warnings on the labels stating that research shows there may be triple the risk for clots with pills such as Yasmin/Yaz. These warnings are also based on an FDA examination of data on more than 835,000 women who took oral contraceptives containing drospirenone, including Yasmin/Yaz.

And on that note—it’s time to adjourn. Happy Friday everyone…

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

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

Top Class Actions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wonder if that settlement amount includes interest?

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

Week Adjourned: 4.20.12 – Purina Dog Treats, FEMA Trailers, Allstate Insurance

The weekly wrap on top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending April 20, 2012. Top stories include Purina dog treats, Allstate Insurance and Hurricane Katrina FEMA trailers.

And this week—it’s business behaving badly…

Top Class Actions

If you have a dog, read this… A $5 million defective products class action lawsuit has been filed against Nestlé Purina Petcare Co, alleging the company’s Waggin’ Train Yam Good chicken-wrapped treats causes kidney failure in dogs.

The Waggin’ Train Yam Good dog treats lawsuit, filed by Dennis Adkins from Illinois, claims his 9-year-old Pomeranian dog became sick and died from kidney failure three days after eating Waggin’ Train Yam Good chicken-wrapped treats. Adkins said he didn’t give his dog more than the recommended one treat per day, and his other dog did not eat the treats and didn’t get sick. Walmart, where the dog treats were sold, is also a defendant in the lawsuit.

As reported by Reuters Legal, in 2011, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a cautionary warning to consumers about a potential link between dog illnesses and chicken jerky-based products imported from China. None of the products were recalled, and no specific brands were mentioned in the FDA warning. Unbelievable? No, sadly not.

Top Settlements

The fallout from Hurricane Katrina just goes on and on…this week, a $14 million settlement was reached in the defective products Hurricane Katrina FEMA trailer class action brought by victims of Hurricane Katrina against 21 companies who manufactured those infamous FEMA trailers.

The companies manufactured government-issued trailers for storm victims after Hurricane Katrina, and the FEMA trailer lawsuit claims that those trailers contained hazardous materials. As a consequence, the occupants were exposed to toxic fumes.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs told media on Tuesday that the trailer manufacturers or their insurers will pay a total of $14.8 million to resolve the claims without any admission of wrongdoing. The proposed settlement could benefit tens of thousands of Gulf Coast residents who lived in the travel trailers, which were provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) after hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, the Associated Press reports.

Early Bird Renewals Catch Bad Faith Insurance Settlement at Allstate. A proposed settlement has been reached this week in a bad faith insurance class action that accuses Allstate of deceptive business practices.

What did they do, you ask? Well allegedly, Allstate Insurance Company and Allstate Indemnity Company (collectively “Allstate”) sent their motor vehicle insureds deceptive motor vehicle insurance renewal bills in order to induce Allstate’s insureds to pay their renewal premium in full a month before the were premiums were actually due.

If you are affected by this potential settlement, you can find out more here. If you have received a Notice, Allstate’s records indicate you are a member of the class.

The Court has given its preliminary approval to the Settlement, and has ordered that a Notice be sent to all Settlement Class Members. Under the terms of the settlement a sum of $2,727,555 would be provided to pay for claims to those class memers who submit valid claims. The payment amount will consist of 30 days of interest at an annual rate of 7 percent simple interest on the payments of the stated “pay in full” amounts that you made on or before the “due date” indicated on the bill.

The judge presiding over this case has deemed that everyone who fits this description is a class member: all Allstate California motor vehicle insureds who from January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2005 received Allstate motor vehicle insurance renewal bills indicating a “due date” for payment approximately one month before the date the policy was to renew, and who paid the stated “pay in full” amount on or before the “due date” on the bill.

And on that happy note—that’s a wrap. I hear the ice-cubes calling my name…

Week Adjourned: 4.13.12 (Muscle Milk, Risperdal, GameStop)

A weekly wrap up of the top class action lawsuits and class action settlements for the week of April 13, 2012; top stories this week: Muscle Milk, Risperdal and GameStop

Top Class Actions

This Week’s Mantra—Cav-e-at Emp-tor…Cav-e-at Emp-tor! Throw that right in there with ‘om shanti shanti shanti om’ at your next yoga class and see what happens…

This week, a consumer fraud class action against Cytosport got greenlit by a judge in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Bottom line, the company is accused of engaging in false advertising of its popular Muscle Milk line of products. (I’d be wary of a product with that name. What does it mean?)

According to the Muscle Milk class action lawsuit, to increase sales figures, Cytosport intentionally misrepresents the purported health benefits of Muscle Milk, and actively draws consumer attention away from the significant amount of saturated fats in the products.

The lawsuit alleges that Cytosport profits significantly from its deceptive marketing of Muscle Milk (well, why else would they do it?) because the company’s depiction of the products as “healthy” plays into consumers’ increasing interest in health-conscious foods.

In its decision, the Court explained that a “reasonable consumer would be likely to believe that the drink contains unsaturated, not saturated fats. The drink container also states that it is a ‘nutritional shake.’ This representation … contributes to a sufficient claim of deceptive product labeling … the injury to the consumer class as a whole could be substantial, even if the injury to individual consumers is minimal. No benefit is served by false and misleading advertising.” Well, that’s not entirely true —the company has benefited, allegedly.

Hey, maybe Lay’s Potato Chips and Muscle Milk can team up for some co-op ads, eh? Mmmaybe not.

Top Settlements

Costliest Ad Campaign Ever? This settlement is one for the books, if it goes through. According to media reports out this week, Johnson & Johnson (J&J) may have to stump up a cool $1.25 billion in penance for deceptive marketing of its atypical antipsychotic Risperdal, in Arkansas. The Risperdal settlement, ordered by a judge in Arkansas, is one of the larger J&J may have to pay for deceptive marketing of the drug. But it’s worth noting that J$J will likely appeal.

According to a report by Bloomberg, it took jurors in state court in Little Rock, not more than three hours to deliver their verdict: J&J and its Janssen unit were guilty of taking part in “false or deceptive acts.”

These “acts” date back to 2003, when the company allegedly sent what’s known as “Dear Doctor” letter to no less than 6,000 doctors in the state, allegedly claiming Risperdal is safer than competing drugs used in the state. ”

FYI—Risperdal carries a warning stating that older adults with dementia who take antipsychotic medications may have an increased risk of death, stroke or mini-stroke during treatment.

The state of Arkansas is seeking more than $1.25 billion in penalties over the Risperdal marketing campaign, and a judge will decide later whether to fine J&J,” Bloomberg reports.

This is the third case in which states allege J&J hid the risks associated with Risperdal—and tricked Medicaid regulators into paying more than they should have for the medicine. And it is the third case in which a jury has found against the drug-maker. Juries in Louisiana and South Carolina have also found that J&J’s marketing of Risperdal violated consumer-protection laws. (Bloomberg)

GameStop GamePlaying Over. And one more time for good measure—yet another consumer fraud class action, this one a settlement against retailer GameStop, who stands accused of “deceptive and misleading practices” with its used game sales and paid downloadable content.

Filed two years ago, by James Collins of California, the GameStop lawsuit claims GameStop sells used copies of games that require users to purchase downloadable content for features, even though the packaging for those games advertise that content as free.

According to the lawsuit, several games include one-time-use codes for consumers to download free content, but they require users to purchase that same content if the code has been redeemed, as is the case for many used copies of games. “As a result of GameStop’s deceptive and misleading practices, consumers who purchase used games from GameStop unknowingly find that they must pay an additional fee to access the full game they thought they purchased,” the lawsuit states.

According to the terms of the settlement, for the next two years GameStop must post online warnings and in-store signs (in California, where the lawsuit was filed) next to used games to remind consumers that certain downloadable content may require an additional purchase.

Consumers in California who have purchased a qualifying used game and are enrolled in GameStop’s PowerUp Rewards Program may be able to recover the $15 they might have paid for downloadable content. Also, they could be eligible to receive a $10 check and a $5 coupon. Non-PowerUp Rewards members can receive a $5 check and a $10 coupon. FYI—this settlement only applies to California customers.

And on that happy note—that’s a wrap. I hear the ice-cubes calling my name…om caveat emptor caveat emptor om…

Week Adjourned: 4.6.12 – Lay’s Potato Chips, Groupon, Medtronic

Weekly wrap-up of top class action lawsuits and class action settlements, for the week ending April 6, 2012.

Top Class Actions

Potato Chips are Healthy! Seriously–it’s time for the shovel on this one folks. A federal consumer fraud class action lawsuit filed against PepsiCo and its subsidiary Frito-Lay this week, claims they mislead customers by “misbranding” their potato chips as healthy because they contain “0 grams of Trans Fat.” Call me old-fashioned, but I think that’s a bit of leap. Like—what exactly happened in the potato-chip-making process that suddenly makes the king of junk food healthy?

Not much, it seems. The Frito-Lay lawsuit contends the advertising does not point out that every 50 chips contains more than 13g of fat. Well, hello!

Specifically, the class action lawsuit accuses Frito-Lay of violating federal and California laws that require companies to provide truthful, accurate information on the labels of packaged foods.

“As consumer preferences have begun to favor healthier options, Defendants have chosen to implement a health and wellness strategy to reposition their products as a healthy option,” the Frito-Lay fraud class action lawsuit states. “Defendants recognize that health claims drive food sales and actively promote the purported health benefits of their Misbranded Food Products, notwithstanding the fact that such promotion violates California and federal law.”

Among the deceptive health claims included in the Lay’s potato chips advertising are that the chips are “prepared with healthier oils,” that Frito-Lay’s snack chips “contain 0 grams of Trans Fat, are low in saturated fat and cholesterol-free,” and that the chips contain “good stuff like potatoes, which naturally contain vitamin C and essential minerals.”

Ok. Nothing short of an Easter miracle is going to make potato chips healthy. Come on.

The consumer fraud class action also notes that Frito-Lay tells consumers that “Snacking is an important part of a healthy diet” and that “Snacks may benefit special populations including people with diabetes, children and adolescents, older adults, and pregnant women.” At a loss for words at this point.

According to the lawsuit, “If a manufacturer is going to make a claim on a food label, the label must meet certain legal requirements that help consumers make informed choices and ensure that they are not misled.” However, PepsiCo and Frito-Lay “have made, and continue to make, false and deceptive claims” in violation of state and federal law. Furthermore, lawyers for the plaintiffs contend, “Misbranded food is worthless as a matter of law, and purchasers of misbranded food are entitled to a refund of their purchase price.”

The Frito-Lay consumer fraud class action lawsuit is brought on behalf of all California consumers who, have purchased Frito-Lay potato chips labeled “0 grams Trans Fat” but which contained more than 13 grams of fat per 50 grams and purchased those chips within the past four years.

The lawsuit is seeking damages, restitution or disgorgement, as well as a cease and desist order banning the companies from selling their allegedly misbranded food products. (Just in case the collective consumer wisdom accumulated over the past 50 years fails to kick in?)

Raw Deal of the Day? Somewhere in Groupon’s tagline, the word beleaguered should appear. To say this company is beset with lawsuits would be an understatement. This week, it’s a securities class action alleging it released “materially false and misleading statements” regarding its financial results. The Groupon lawsuit seeks class-action status on behalf of shareholders who acquired Groupon shares between November 4, 2011 and March 30, 2012.

The lawsuit also claims Groupon’s revenue and growth were overstated, and the company “was not nearly resistant to competition as suggested by defendants.”

The fellow who filed the suit, Fan Zhang, claims that Groupon “failed to disclose negative trends” that would have affected its IPO pricing of 35 million shares of common stock at $20 per share.

Short version—Fan Zhang reportedly bought 3,000 shares of Groupon at an estimated $61,800 in February, then sold those shares in March at a $9,000 loss. Ouch! The lawsuit goes on to state “Groupon’s internal controls were so poor and inadequate that Groupon’s reported results were not reliable.”

The defendants include Groupon Chief Executive Andrew Mason and several banks that helped take the company public, including the lead IPO underwriters Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. Um. None of those banks are strangers to lawsuits. Oh well, if you’re heading into a lawsuit like this, best to have some experienced people with you…

Top Settlements

And While we’re on the Subject of Groupon… they agreed to settle a consumer fraud class action this week to the tune of $85.million. The Groupon lawsuit, filed by disgruntled customers, (who else?) alleges that the expiration dates on Groupon coupons are illegal.

The proposed settlement applies to anyone who purchased Groupon vouchers before December 1, 2011. Under the terms of the settlement, the class members can either redeem the coupons beyond their expiration date or, if they are unable to do so, obtain a refund from the $8.5 million fund. Residents in some states can seek refunds only for vouchers sold after Aug. 22, 2010.

And, for the next three years, also as part of the settlement, Groupon has agreed not to sell more than 10 percent of its daily deals with an expiration date of less than 30 days after their issue date.

According to Bloomberg.com, the settlement pertains to no less than 17 lawsuits filed against the daily deals dealer, which were subsequently consolidated. The plaintiffs claimed Groupon and various retailers violate federal and state consumer protection laws with improper expiration dates and other provisions for the vouchers, such as the requirement that they be used in a single transaction.

“Groupon effectively creates a sense of urgency among consumers to quickly purchase ‘groupon’ gift certificates by offering ‘daily deals’ for a short amount of time,” according to the first lawsuit which was filed in 2011. “Consumers therefore feel pressured and are rushed into buying the gift certificates and unwittingly become subject to the onerous sales conditions.”

New Meaning to Graft? And then there’s Medtronic. What can we say about these guys—that’s good? Not much really. Although this news is good—for investors. The medical equipment company has agreed to pony up $85 million to settle investors’ claims regarding stock fraud.

The securities class action lawsuit claims that the investors were misled by company leaders on the off-label uses of the company’s highly controversial Medtronic Infuse bone graft. This product is troubling from a number of angles.

The Medtronic stock fraud settlement still awaits final documentation and court approval.

The lawsuit, filed in 2008 by the Minneapolis Firefighters Relief Association, claims that Medtronic’s officers and directors misled investors through a nearly decade-long campaign to illegally promote Infuse for uses not approved by the Food & Drug Administration.

Sales and future growth of the graft were “driven by misconduct that invited, and ultimately brought about, the scrutiny of federal regulators and an abrupt decline in sales,” according to a case brief by attorneys for the investors. As a result, revenues declined, so did the value of shares, which fell to $31.60 from $57.86.

And on that happy note—that’s a wrap. Happy Good Friday everyone.

Wait—is that a bunny on my lawn?

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

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

Top Class Actions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Class Actions

Bit of a theme here this week—consumer fraud.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Class Actions

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

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

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

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

Top Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Class Actions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

Top Class Actions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Settlements

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

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

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

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