Apple - Part 2

Week Adjourned: 5.2.14 – Baby Powder, Aveda, Apple, Google, Intel, Adobe

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top stories include Baby Powder cancer risk, Aveda interns, and the tech worker salary collusion settlement

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Talc Troubles? It’s one thing to file a consumer fraud class action lawsuit alleging mislabelling infractions regarding “all natural” and “ no preservatives”—for example, but a consumer fraud class action filed this week against Johnson & Johnson alleging its classic baby powder products are associated with a significant increase in the risk of ovarian cancer, well that’s just a whole different level of muckery. Why do I continue to be surprised by these things…

According to the baby powder lawsuit, filed by plaintiff Mona Estrada (Mona Estrada v. Johnson & Johnson et al., case number 2:14-cv-01051, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California) studies have shown a 33% increased risk for ovarian cancer associated with talcum powder among women who use it on their genitals. Yet the only warnings on the product labels tell users to keep the powder away from their eyes, avoid inhalation and to use externally. Estrada, who has used the product since 1950, claims she expected Johnson’s Baby Powder, made of scented talc, to be safe. Further, the lawsuit claims J&J has failed to disclose the information regarding ovarian cancer risk on its product labels.
“As a result of the defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions, plaintiff and the proposed class have purchased a product which is potentially lethal,” the complaint states. Estrada alleges she would not have purchased the powder had she been aware of the risk. You think? Thankfully, Estrada is not claiming any personal injury.

Estrada further alleges she has bought J&J’s powder since 1950 and believed all this time that the product was safe to use on any external part of her body, and that J&J encouraged women to use the product daily.

“Although the label has changed over time, the message is the same: that the product is safe for use on women as well as babies,” the lawsuit states. The lawsuit also states that J&J has known of studies showing that women who used talcum powder on their genital area had a higher risk of ovarian cancer, since at least 1982. Further, the author of a 1982 study was contacted by a J&J doctor who was told the company it should add a warning label to the bottle.

The talc lawsuit goes on to state that the American Cancer Society (ACS) allegedly said that a 2008 study, linking higher usage of talcum powder to increased risk of cancer, showed the powder “probably” increased the risk for cancer. The ACS compared talcum powder to asbestos, postmenopausal hormone therapy and radiation. Oh great.

The lawsuit claims J&J violated the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law, negligently misrepresented its powder and breached its implied warranty. This is going to be interesting.

Beauty Blunder? Aveda Corp, and its parent company, Estee Lauder Inc, and are facing an employment lawsuit filed by a former beauty school student who alleges the beauty companies treat their trainees as unpaid employees in violation of state and federal labor law. There must be some law of physics that works something like—the larger the company the less they pay—or try to pay…

Filed by lead plaintiff Jazlyn Jennings, the lawsuit claims that Aveda uses students at its California cosmetology schools as unpaid workers, requiring them to provide full hair and beauty services to paying clients, while at the same time claiming to provide educational experience to those trainees. Yes—it’s an educational experience alright—just not the kind the students signed up for.

The nitty gritty—“The California defendants led plaintiff and others…to believe that they were paying tuition to learn the skills necessary to succeed in the glamorous profession of beauty and cosmetology. Instead, they converted students into student employees to profit from their free labor.”

According to Jennings, she trained at the Aveda Institute Los Angeles from April 2011 to June 2012, where she provided haircuts, makeup removal, manicures and other services to customers without being compensated for her labor.

Jennings alleges that the institute’s staff did not properly supervise students who shelled out “thousands or tens of thousands” to participate in its yearlong training program, providing just four supervisors for the 40 students working on the salon floor, in violation of state regulations.

In addition to the Aveda institute in Los Angeles, Jennings also names its San Francisco-based school, the Cinta Aveda Institute Inc., and its Southeast institute operator, Beauty Basics Inc., as co-defendants in the employment lawsuit. “[Defendants] could have hired employees who they would have had to have paid at least minimum wage but instead chose to displace such employees with the free labor they demanded of their student employees,” the lawsuit states.

Additionally, according to the allegations, students were compelled to sell Aveda products to the public, effectively transforming students into “non-commissioned salespeople.” And the litany of bad deeds goes on to include handing over of tips and insufficient or completely absent supervision—if that’s not a contradiction in terms… but you get the picture.

So—bottom line—by failing to pay its “student employees,” the complaint claims that Aveda violated the minimum wage requirements of both California labor law and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Additionally, Jennings claims Aveda failed to pay overtime, did not provide proper meal and rest breaks, did not provide accurate wage statements and engaged in unfair business practices.

Heads up—Jennings is seeking to represent a class of individuals who provided beauty services or sold products to paying customers in the named Aveda institutes from April 22, 2010, to the present. The class may also include student employees who cleaned or provided support services to Aveda’s beauty institutes in California.

Top Settlements

This settlement almost slipped under the radar this week—surprising given that the named defendants are Apple Inc, Google Inc, Intel Inc and Adobe Systems Inc. The tech worker settlement is, not surprisingly, pre-trial in the amount of $324 million—and it’s meant to end an antitrust class action lawsuit brought by by Silicon Valley tech engineers.

The lawsuit was filed in 2011, alleging that the four tech giants conspired to hold down salaries in Silicon Valley. You may remember some finger pointing at Steve Jobs over this one. In any event, the class action, filed in 2011 by Silicon Valley engineers, alleged that Apple Inc, Google Inc, Intel Inc and Adobe Systems conspired to refrain from soliciting one another’s employees in order to avert a salary war.

The trial, which will not be going ahead, surprise,surprise—was scheduled to begin at the end of May on behalf of roughly 64,000 workers who were seeking $3 billion in damages. Whoa Nelly—now that would have had an impact.
Ok—Folks—we’re done here—have a great weekend and we’ll see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 11.1.13 – iMac, Trump U, Verizon

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top stories include iMac faulty screens, Trump University and Verizon overtime class actions.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

More Bad Apples! It seems Apple just can’t stay out of the news – but is publicity really good publicity in this case? The tech Wunderstar is facing a defective products class action lawsuit over allegations that iMacs sold with 27 inch screens have faulty displays.

Filed by Corbin Rasmussen, the Apple lawsuit contends that half of Rasmussen’s iMac display failed after only 18 months. The lawsuit further claims that Apple wanted $500 to fix the problem.

Rasmussen alleges this is not an isolated incident, that the problem with the iMac screen is widespread, and that Apple refuses to address the problem. Rasmussen alleges Apple misled consumers by selling them iMacs with displays that failed prematurely.

The iMac screen lawsuit states that hundreds of consumers who purchased 27-inch iMac had half the display fail just months after their warranties expired. It also alleges that when Apple updated the iMac line in 2011 it failed to make any changes to the display or video card in order to prevent the issue from affecting future iMac buyers.

Rasmussen alleges Apple’s marketing led him to believe the iMac was “designed for a long productive life,” and that 18 months of usability he experienced fails to live up to that claim.

The class action seeks to represent Rasmussen and all those similarly situated who purchased 27-inch iMac in the US before December 2012. The suit targets iMacs that used LG’s LED backlit display.

And, Speaking of Bad Apples… Donald Trump is facing consumer fraud class action lawsuit brought by a California businessman who alleges he was duped into spending $35,000 on essentially bogus programs at Trump University.

Filed in the Southern District of California, Plaintiff Art Cohen seeks to represent other buyers of the programs in a class-action lawsuit against Trump.

According to the Trump University lawsuit, Cohen learned about Trump University in 2009 through a newspaper ad. He alleges he received a “special invitation” from Trump, by mail, to the school which included two VIP tickets to a free seminar. Cohen subsequently took programs which, he alleges he would not have paid for had known he wouldn’t have access to Trump’s real estate investing secrets. He further alleges that Trump had “no meaningful role” in selecting the instructors and that Trump University was not a “university.”

“Trump did not fulfill the promises he made to student-victims around the country — he did not teach students his coveted real estate investing ‘secrets’ at the Live Events, he did not contribute in any meaningful way to the curriculum for the Live Events, and he did not handpick the Live Event seminar instructors and mentors who ‘taught’ student-victims at three-day Live Events and Elite mentorship programs — both of which were upsells from the free introductory Live Event called the ‘Preview,’” the 34-page complaint claims.

Cohen is not alone in his complaints against Trump University. According to the lawsuit, nearly a dozen state attorneys general and the US Department of Justice have received “numerous” complaints about Trump’s institution. In August, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman filed a lawsuit against Trump and the Trump Entrepreneur Institute, formerly known as Trump University LLC, for allegedly engaging in deceptive and illegal conduct.

I wonder if The Donald should be teaching courses in “Dodging Consumer Fraud Lawsuits” instead…

Cohen is seeking damages and equitable relief on behalf of himself and the class, including, but not limited to, treble their monetary damages, restitution, injunctive relief, punitive damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees.

Top Settlements

Guess the Employees have been Heard Now! Verizon Communications has been ordered to pay $7.7 million to settle an unpaid overtime class action lawsuit brought by its retail employees.

The wage and hour class action alleged the wireless carrier was in violation the Fair Labor Standards Act and state wage laws, because it refused to its workers overtime and bonuses.

The Verizon settlement, approved by U.S. Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez, will end the Verizon unpaid overtime class action lawsuit which was filed over two years ago.

Ok Folks, That’s all for this week. Have a good one—see you at the bar !

Week Adjourned: 8.2.13 – Apple Store, Pfizer, Chester Career College

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending August 2, 2013. Top lawsuits include Apple employees claiming wage and hour violations, Pfizer Rapamune Off Label marketing fines and Chester Career College settling consumer fraud charges.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Bad Apple! It seems Apple may be entering the ever-growing list of wage and hour offenders. This week, a class action lawsuit was filed against the tech giant, alleging that Apple store staff are not paid for the time they spend undergoing bag searches, as required by the company’s policy.

Apple has a policy of requiring its retail store employees to undergo two mandatory bag searches per day. Two former Apple store employees from New York and Los Angeles filed a complaint in San Francisco federal court on Thursday regarding this policy. They allege they had to stand in lines up to 30 minutes long every day for store managers to check their bags and ensure they weren’t smuggling home stolen goods. The Apple unpaid wages lawsuit claims that the cumulative time employees spend having these bag searches done totals dozens of hours of unpaid wages, roughly $1,500 per year.

“Apple has engaged and continues to engage in illegal and improper wage practices that have deprived Apple Hourly Employees throughout the United States of millions of dollars in wages and overtime compensation,” the complaint reads.

“These practices include requiring Apple Hourly Employees to wait in line and undergo two off-the-clock security bag searches and clearance checks when they leave for their meal breaks and after they have clocked out at the end of their shifts.”

According to the complaint, Apple’s retail stores employ some 42,400 people in 13 countries. The retail outlets generated net sales of $156.5 billion in 2012. Most hourly workers make between minimum wage and $18.75 per hour and work 40 hours per week.

Amanda Frlekin and Dean Pelle, the two former employees who filed the wage and hour lawsuit, worked as “specialists,” essentially an in-store customer support position. The Apple lawsuit describes the bag searches as “required but uncompensated security checks,” claiming that Apple violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and New York labor law, and California labor law.

Top Settlements

Off-label Drug Marketing Saga Continues—this week, it’s news that Pfizer will have to pony up $491 million to settle criminal and civil charges relating to its off-label marketing of Rapamune. The US Justice Department had claimed the drug company marketed the kidney-transplant drug for patients who received non-kidney organ transplants.

The Justice Department began its investigation over four years ago, and Pfizer inherited the probe when it bought Wyeth in 2009.

According to the Justice Department, Wyeth trained sales reps to push Rapamune for unapproved uses and offered bonuses to persuade them to flog the drug for patients it wasn’t cleared to treat. “This was a systemic, corporate effort to seek profit over safety,” U.S. Attorney Sanford Coats said in a statement. “Companies that ignore compliance with FDA regulations will face criminal prosecution and stiff penalties.”

Under the Pfizer Rapamune settlement agreement, Pfizer’s Wyeth division pleaded guilty to a criminal misbranding violation under the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act. The deal includes a criminal fine of $157.58 million and asset forfeiture amounting to $76 million, or $233.5 million total. Civil payments to the government and states add another $257.4 million, for a total of $490.9 million. Okee dokee…

Looks like Chester Career College hit the Learning Curve on this one—at a cost of $5 million. That’s the settlement that was just approved ending a financial consumer fraud class action lawsuit pending against the college, formerly known as Richmond School of Health and Technology. The lawsuit alleged that the for-profit college practices predatory lending practices affecting thousands of students, primarily African American students, while offering sub-par education.

The back story—Chester Career College purportedly offers classes leading to careers in nursing, massage therapy and other medical-related fields, and specifically targeted inner city students with ads on hip-hop stations and other media aimed at their demographic. According to the lawsuit, the college enrolled “almost exclusively” students who qualified for federal financial aid, primarily in the form of student loans.

The Chester Career College settlement, approved by US District Judge John A. Gibney, will also see the school reimburse more than 4,000 students and for attorneys’ fees and requires Chester Career College to institute changes that will provide prospective students with “much more transparency” before they enroll. Further, the settlement also provides for continued tracking of students and career placement “to strengthen the school” and its educational mission as it moves forward.

Here’s the skinny—the settlement covers students enrolled at the school from July 2004 through February 2013. Students who qualify for claims will receive settlement notices by mail. Any money left unclaimed from the remaining funds in the escrow account after one year will be donated to nonprofit organizations dedicated to assisting the economically disadvantaged.

Ok folks, have a good one—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: 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: 5.24.13 – Nike, Apple, Wolfgang Puck, Penguin Books

The weekly wrap of top class action lawsuits and settlements, for the week ending May 24, 2013.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Nike Calorie Tracker Can’t “Just Do It”? Nike and Apple are facing a consumer fraud class action lawsuit alleging the Nike+ FuelBand, which is supposed to track every step and calorie a wearer burns, doesn’t work as advertised. Now there’s a surprise. The device costs $150, which really is shocking.

Filed by Carolyn Levin of California, the Nike+ FuelBand lawsuit contends that both Apple and Nike knew that the Nike+ FuelBand is defective because it registers inaccurate readings. Nevertheless, they marketed and sold it, and made exaggerated claims about its capabilities.

Specifically, the lawsuit states “In truth, the Nike+ FuelBand cannot and does not track each calorie burned, and users experience wildly inaccurate calorie burn readings when using the FuelBand.” And, “As a result of defendants’ conduct, buyers of the FuelBand, including class members, were in fact misled into purchasing a device that defendants purported would track calories burned when in fact it cannot and does not track calories burned, misleading and damaging customers.”

The class action, entitled Carolyn Levin, et al. v. Nike Inc., et al., Case No. BC509363, in the Superior Court of the State of California, seeks to represent all consumers who purchased the wristband device since January 2012, when it was initially brought to market. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants have made negligent and fraudulent misrepresentations, and have violated California’s business and professions code.

Is Wolfgang Passing the Puck? Ah yes—at least according to an employment class action lawsuit just filed by two former servers who allege the company knowingly withheld their tips and failed to pay overtime. Filed in Manhattan by plaintiffs Kristin Noriega and Oliver Gummert, the Wolfgang Puck lawsuit contends that a Wolfgang Puck catering company was charging its client venues, such as Irving Plaza and the Gramercy Theater, with a 22 percent service charge and then denying its servers and bartenders their tips. “Any charge for ‘service’ or ‘food service,’ is a charge purported to be a gratuity and therefore must be paid over to service employees,” the lawsuit claims. Failing to pass on a service charge that clients have been charged, violates state and federal laws.

And…according to the lawsuit… Noriega, a waitress, and Gummert, a bartender, were paid between $10 and $18 an hour and were not compensated for up to 30 hours of overtime a week. Both Noriega and Gummert left Puck’s employment in 2012, after working for the company for two to three years. That’s not ok…

Top Settlements

Penguin is re-writing the antitrust book on ebook pricing settlements—having agreed to a $75 million payment this week. Penguin’s settlement with the consumers and 33 states is the largest to date.

HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, Hachette and Macmillan have all settled with both the states and the Department of Justice (DOJ)—HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, Hachette settled for—get this—a combined $69 million, while Macmillan agreed to pay $20 million.

The settlement is the last of the major publishers to settle. Penguin settled with the DOJ several months ago. Apple, also a defendant in the class action, is going to court in a few weeks and will face the DOJ over antitrust pricing allegations.

The settlement is pending court approval, and a fairness hearing is scheduled for late summer. We’ll keep you posted—so watch this space.

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

Week Adjourned: 5.17.13 – iPhone 4, Wells Fargo, Generic Drugs

The weekly wrap on top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending May 17, 2013. Top stories this week include iPhone 4, Wells Fargo and generic drugmaker Ranbaxy.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Bad Apple! The god of tech gadgets got slapped this week—with a potential defective products class action lawsuit (yes, another one), alleging its iPhone 4 has a defective power button, effectively preventing the operator from being able to use the phone. This power button failure allegedly occurs shortly after the phone’s one year warranty expires. And doesn’t that just figure…

The Apple iPhone 4 class action lawsuit, filed by plaintiff Debra Hilton, Debra Hilton v. Apple Inc., Case No. 13-cv-2167, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, claims “The failure of the power button that has plagued the iPhone 4 is more than an inconvenience… As a method by which the phone is toggled on and off, the failure of the button precludes general use of the phone and thereby effectively prevents iPhone 4 owners from being able to use the phone.” Yup.

According to the lawsuit, Hilton alleges the iPhone 4 power button defect is caused by the premature deterioration of a flex cable that connects the power button to the phone. When this cable deteriorates, the power button becomes harder and harder to depress, and eventually fails to work. Yup.

The iPhone 4 lawsuit contends that thousands of consumers who purchased the iPhone 4 have experienced this failure forcing them to throw away their phone or pay Apple $149.99 plus shipping for a replacement. Yikes! Better get on it boys.

Top Settlements

Two Better than One for Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo made headlines twice this week, two settlements to report—both biggies. The first was a judicial order to reinstate a $203 million judgment against the bank in settlement of an overdraft fees class action lawsuit.

In a nutshell, the judgment, based upon the court’s findings, as affirmed on appeal by the Ninth Circuit, states that Wells Fargo violated California’s unfair competition law by deceiving its customers that debit card purchases would be posted chronologically to their accounts when in fact Wells Fargo posted them in a high-to-low order for the sole purpose of generating overdraft fees.

The case was brought on behalf of California Wells Fargo customers who, from November 15, 2004 to June 30, 2008, incurred overdraft fees on debit card transactions as a result of the bank’s practice of sequencing transactions from highest to lowest.

The second settlement with Wells Fargo’s name on it involves a force-placed insurance class action lawsuit brought by homeowners in Florida. (Force-placed insurance, btw, is sometimes referred to as “lender placed insurance”.) The lawsuit alleged that the homeowners were overcharged for the insurance, and that Wells Fargo unfairly took commission on the insurance, which it assigned to the homeowners through QBE.

The class was certified in 2012, and more than 24,000 homeowners were notified. During the class period, from April 2006 to February 2013, the class members were charged $77 million for force-placed insurance, according to the settlement documents, the South Florida Business Journal reports.

But wouldn’t you know it, just two months before they were due to go to court, the parties reached a $19.5 million settlement.

The settlement will provide a refund of the amount charged for force-placed insurance to the members of the class. Borrowers who were charged and paid the premium will be refunded 25 percent in cash. Those who were charged the premium but didn’t pay will get a credit of 25 percent off their bill.

Bet those homeowners are breathing a huge sigh of relief this weekend.

Largest Generic Drug Safety Fine. Ever. We’d be completely remiss if we didn’t mention this one… Ranbaxy has pled guilty to federal drug safety violations and will pay $500 million in fines to resolve the claims. The generic drug manufacturer is alleged to have sold subpar drugs and made false statements to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) about its manufacturing practices at two factories in India.

According to the Justice Department, the settlement is reportedly the largest in history involving a generic drug maker. Part of the settlement involves Ranbaxy pleading guilty to three felony counts of violating the federal drug safety law and four of making false statements to the FDA.

According to a report by the New York Times, Ranbaxy acknowledged it had failed to conduct proper safety and quality tests of several drugs manufactured at its Indian plants, known as Paonta Sahib and Dewas, including generic versions of many common medicines, such as the epilepsy drug gabapentin, and the antibiotic ciprofloxacin.

In the case of gabapentin, also known as Neurontin, Ranbaxy reportedly admitted that between June and August in 2007, it was aware that certain batches had tested positive for “unknown impurities” and had unreliable shelf lives. Nevertheless, the company didn’t report this to the FDA and announce a recall until October of that year. The recall ultimately involved more than 73 million pills.

Further, testing of certain batches of drugs to ensure their effectiveness was reportedly not done for weeks or months after the company had told the FDA the testing had been carried out.

Ranbaxy has set aside $500 million in anticipation of the penalties, which will break down as a $150 million in a criminal fine and forfeiture, and the remainder going to settle civil claims brought by the federal government and all 50 states. A former Ranbaxy executive who alerted the federal government to the problems will receive close to $49 million in compensation for his role as a whistleblower, the Times reports.

That’s a wrap. It’s cocktail hour—somewhere in the world—see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 4.12.13 – Apple, Skechers, Path, Fisker

This week, the top class actions in the news are Apple, Skechers, Path and Fisker. Week Adjourned is your weekly wrap of class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending April 12, 2013.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

No, the Path to Profit is not through Spam…as Path social media can now attest to. The mobile social network got hit with a potential class-action lawsuit this week for allegedly sending unsolicited text ads to people’s cell phones, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

Filed in Illinois, by Kevin Sterk, the Path lawsuit alleges that Sterk received an unsolicited SMS message in March from Path. The message stated that someone else wanted to show Sterk photos on the service, and contained a link to a site where he could register to join. Sterk claims he never authorized Path to contact him via SMS. Further, the lawsuit alleges the company has sent similar text messages to “thousands” of other cell phone users.

“By making these unauthorized text message calls, [Path] has caused consumers actual harm, not only because consumers were subjected to the aggravation that necessarily accompanies the receipt of unauthorized text message calls, but also because consumers frequently have to pay their cell phone service providers for the receipt of such unauthorized text message calls,” the TCPA lawsuit states.

The Path class action lawsuit contends that these unsolicited messages violate the TCPA, which prohibits companies from using automated dialing services to send SMS messages without the recipients’ consent. The law provides for damages of $500 per incident. Sterk, who is seeking class-action status, is asking for monetary damages and an order prohibiting Path from sending unsolicited text messages.

I wish someone would come up with an app that would enable the average Joe to spam the spammers. Now, that could be fun!

Forewarned isn’t Forearmed at Fisker? The folks at Fisker are facing an employment class action lawsuit filed over allegations it failed to provide 60 days notice to employees who were part of recent mass layoffs. Those layoffs are allegedly in violation of US and California labor laws.

FYI—the US Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, a federal law, stipulates that companies with over 100 employees must provide 60 days notice prior to laying off their employees. There is also a similar requirement in place under California state law.

The employment lawsuit against Fisker alleges the company failed to pay the employees their 60 days pay and benefits that they would have been received had they been provided their duly entitled 60-day notice. Further, the lawsuit claims Fisker failed to notify California’s state Employment Development Department of its layoff plans, as well as the local workforce investment board, as well as the top elected officials in Anaheim and Orange County.

Top Settlements

A bit Sketchy on Skechers? Well, it’s official, but not approved. Confused? Don’t be. Last September we reported that Skechers has agreed to a preliminary $40 million settlement of a consumer fraud class action brought by disgruntled customers who claim the company misrepresented the benefits of the “toning shoes.”

Entitled Grabowski v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., No. 3:12-cv-00204 (W.D. Ky.), the lawsuit concerns claims that Skechers violated certain state laws and consumer protection statutes in connection with the marketing and sale of its toning shoes. Not surprisingly, Skechers denies those allegations.

It looks as if final approval may be at hand, as the fairness hearing was scheduled for mid-March 2013. This matters to you purchased eligible Skechers toning shoes from August 1, 2008, up to and including August 13, 2012 in the United States.

To find out more information and to download claims forms, visit: http://www.skecherssettlement.com/

Bad Apples, eh? This one is all over the wires today…Apple—the faltering god of all things techno—has reportedly agreed to a $53 million settlement in the class action lawsuit pending over alleged defective iPhones and iPod Touch.

The unfair business practices class action was originally filed against Apple in 2010, and centered around claims that the company failed to honor its warranty obligations by fixing or replacing defective devices.

According to a report by CNET, thousands of owners of the original iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, or the first three generations of the iPod Touch who were unsuccessful in getting Apple to honor its warranty related to repairs and replacements, can submit claims in the suit. These devices carried one-year standard and two-year extended warranties.

The settlement has yet to be approved, and full details have not been made public. Wired is reporting that depending on how many people submit claims, individual payouts could be approximately $200. Stay tuned for more on this one.

Ok—that’s a wrap. See you at that bar…

Week Adjourned: 3.1.13 – Walmart, Budweiser, Apple

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. This week’s highlights include Wal-Mart, Budweiser and Apple.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

If at first you don’t succeed, try, try, try again…Good advice, we hope, for the women who have just filed a regional gender discrimination class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart.

Now, to be clear, Wal-Mart is not unfamiliar with the allegations, as a national gender discrimination and employment class action was filed against the world’s largest retailer only to be dismissed in 2011 by the US Supreme Court. Had that class action gone through, the class of plaintiffs would likely have been in the hundreds of thousands. But it didn’t. So—now, acting on the advice from the Supreme Court, women are filing discrimination class actions by state. The one filed this week is the fifth such regional lawsuit.

Filed in Wisconsin by one current and four former employees, the class action, entitled Ladik et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Case No. 13-cv-00123, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, alleges that female employees are discriminated against when it comes to receiving compensation and promotions. The Wisconsin gender discrimination class action lawsuit is seeking to represent female workers employed by Wal-Mart since December 1998.

I’ll show my gender bias and wish them every success!

Hey Bud—this one’s for you! Oh heck yes. This week saw Anheuser Busch, the brewer of the self-proclaimed King of Beers—Budweiser —get hit with several consumer fraud class action lawsuits alleging that it waters down its Budweiser, Michelob and other top-selling beers. Tsk,Tsk. Do not go messing with people’s alcohol content gentlemen.

Filed in Pennsylvania, California and other states, the Budweiser lawsuits allege that consumers have been sold beer that contains less alcohol than advertised on the labels.

Specifically, the complaints allege that Anheuser Busch employs some of the most sophisticated process control technology in the world to precisely monitor the alcohol content at the final stages of production, and then adds additional water to produce beers with significantly lower alcohol content than is represented on the product labels, and depriving consumers of the value they paid for.

The lawsuits are based on information provided by former employees at the company’s 13 US breweries, some in high-level plant positions, according to lead lawyer Josh Boxer (MSN.com). “Our information comes from former employees at Anheuser-Busch, who have informed us that as a matter of corporate practice, all of their products mentioned (in the lawsuit) are watered down,” Boxer told MSN.com “It’s a simple cost-saving measure, and it’s very significant.”

The complaint alleges: “There are no impediments—economic, practical or legal—to AB accurately labeling its products to reflect their true alcohol content. Nevertheless, AB uniformly misrepresents and overstates that content.”

Nina Giampaoli who filed the California-based lawsuit, said “I think it’s wrong for huge corporations to lie to their loyal customers—I really feel cheated. No matter what the product is, people should be able to rely on the information companies put on their labels.”

I’ll drink to that!

Top Settlements

Nothin’ like a kid in an Apple—er, candy—store. This one is for all you parents out there who woke up on morning to find your credit card balance had magically grown—seemingly on its own. But wait—is that the patter of little feet I hear? Could it be the kids buying in-game extras from the Apple mobile apps store that’s the root of the mystery? You betcha!

And this week, Apple magnanimously agreed to pony up some gift cards, no total value given, by the way, in settlement of the consumer fraud class action it’s facing over what could only be described as unfair business practices.

If the Apple apps settlement is approved, parents would receive $5 iTunes gift cards. Wow—pack up the kids, you’re going on vacation!

Ok—here’s the skinny. The lawsuit is brought by parents who allege their children downloaded free games from the Apple mobile app store and then went on to buy in-game extras—effectively charging the cost of the games to their parents—without their parents’ knowledge. In some cases these charges ran into the hundreds of dollars. Yup.

If approved, Apple would build a website for people who wish to make a claim. As well the tech-giant would send e-mail notifications to some 23 million customers. OK, that ain’t chump change.

According to a report by CNN.com parents whose children incurred larger costs and who want more than $5 gift card, must provide proof that a larger amount was spent by their children during any 45-day period. Those who can show more than $30 in purchases may choose a cash refund instead of an Apple credit. Purchases made until the date of the settlement would be eligible for refunds, CNN.com reported.

Bad Apple! What kind of example does that set?

Ok—See you at the bar and Happy Friday!

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!