Class Action Lawsuit

Week Adjourned: 5.1.15 – Tinder, Hertz, Actos

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Tinder’s igniting a wee litigation storm it seems. The company behind the popular dating app of the same name, has been hit with another class action lawsuit filed by a customer who alleges the app charges men and users over the age of 30 more to use its premium service, and is therefore discriminating on the basis of age and gender. Isn’t that just good business? You use more, you pay more? No?

Maybe not. Filed in California federal court, by Plaintiff Michael Manapol, this Tinder lawsuit contends that Manapol paid $19.99 for a one-month subscription to the service, while Tinder charged $9.99 for those under 30. He also alleges he was charged recurring, automatic renewal fees, in violation of California law, and that his account was illegally debited, without his authorization.

“Defendant offers no discounts for its Tinder Plus services, than that offered to consumers based solely upon their age. However, [women] receive more favorable swiping terms than man, which is akin to free entrance to Ladies Night, a practice deemed illegal by the California Supreme Court,” the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit also alleges Tinder falsely advertised its service by claiming to be “free.” One Billy Warner filed a lawsuit over the free or not-so-free Tinder advertising back in March.

The Manapol lawsuit seeks to establish a nationwide class of people who downloaded the Tinder app before March 2, 2015. In addition, four subclasses are proposed, specifically: an auto-renewal subclass; a price discrimination subclass; a gender discrimination subclass; and an Electronic Funds Transfer Act subclass.

The complaint cites an interview with Tinder spokeswoman’s on National Public Radio, in which she allegedly said, “During our testing we’ve learned, not surprisingly, that younger users are just as excited about Tinder Plus but are more budget constrained and need a lower price to pull the trigger.”

FYI…The case is Michael Manapol et al. v. Tinder Inc. et al., case number 2:15-cv-03175, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Hertz employees being taken for a ride? The Hertz Corp is facing a potential $4 million unpaid wages and overtime class action alleging the company doesn’t pay its employees for working through breaks, and fails to pay them overtime wages.

No stranger to employment lawsuits, this one, alleges that the vehicle rental chain systematically underpaid its customer service representatives in various ways, in violation of the California labor law. The Hertz overtime lawsuit was filed by Plaintiff Juan Herrera on behalf of himself and all other non-overtime exempt California Hertz employees for the previous four years.

“Defendants knew they had a duty to accurately compensate plaintiff and class members for all hours worked, including overtime wages and meal and rest period premiums, and that defendants had the financial ability to pay such compensation, but willfully, knowingly, recklessly and/or intentionally failed to do so,” Herrera states.

Specifically, the complaint states that Hertz fails to provide meal and rest periods for its employees by structuring its schedules, policies and workload requirements to not allow the workers their full meal and rest breaks. The company then fails to properly compensate them for the loss.

Additionally, Herrera alleges that Hertz requires its customer service representatives to prepare for their shifts without pay and failing to factor commissions into the employees’ regular rate of pay when calculating overtime pay rates.

That lawsuit also seeks to represent non-overtime exempt employees in California, which Hertz estimates amounts to as many as 2,000 former employees and as much as $11.5 million in alleged damages.

The case is Juan Herrera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Hertz Corp. et al., case number BC579320, in the Superior Court of the State of California County of Los Angeles.

Top Settlements

This is a biggie—to the tune of $2.4 billion… That’s the sum agreed to in a settlement between Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. and some 9,000 plaintiffs who filed personal injury lawsuits against the company, alleging it failed to warn of bladder cancer risks from taking its Type 2 diabetes drug Actos (pioglitazone hydrochloride).

Under the terms of the agreement, Takeda will establish a fund of between $2.37 billion and $2.4 billion, depending on how many Actos litigants opt into the settlement.

Over 4,000 cases are included in this agreement, and were coordinated in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, as well as lawsuits filed by about 4,000 people in Cook County, IL, according to lawyers for the plaintiffs.

While Takeda denies any wrongdoing in this agreement, the settlement will recover some compensation for the victims who have been injured and, in some cases, maimed by bladder cancer while taking Actos.

Hokee Dokee—That’s a wrap folks…See you at the Bar!

Week Adjourned: 4.24.15 – Match.com, Turbo Tax, Generic Provigil

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Match.com has managed to light a fire under one customer’s arse—so much so that said person has filed a proposed consumer fraud class action alleging the dating site is in violation of state law for failing to inform clients that they can end their service agreements by sending a letter to the company. Well, their tagline says “Start your love story”…kinda the Hotel California (all due respect to the Eagles) of taglines there… And who knew?

Filed in California federal court by Plaintiff Zeke Graf, the Match.com lawsuit alleges that in 2012, when Graf joined Match.com, the company’s contract did not cite a notice required by California law stating that new customers can cancel their contracts within three business days by sending a letter.

Additionally, Graf’s complaint maintains that a consumer can cancel their contract with a dating service at any time, should it fail to comply with the law. Match’s contract stated otherwise, according to the suit.

“In fact, defendant’s contract explicitly stated that plaintiff’s subscription with defendant would remain active until the end of plaintiff’s subscription period following plaintiff’s cancellation of said dating service contract,” the complaint states.

Therefore, Graf contends, Match.com is forcing Californian daters to enter into contracts that require them to waive protections granted under state law, and this has been taking place for at least the past four years.

According to the complaint, through its contract practices, Match.com is running a scheme to make “money from California consumers through false, deceptive, and misleading means.”

“Defendant had other reasonably available alternatives to further its legitimate business interest, other than the conduct described herein, such as adequately disclosing the notice of consumers’ rights to cancel contacts with defendant,” the complaint states.

Heads up all you unhappy matcher.commers….Graf seeks to represent a class of California consumers who bought subscriptions to Match.com during the past four years and whose contracts failed to include their cancellation notice rights.

The case is Graf v. Match.com LLC, case number 2:15-cv-02913 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

As if filing your taxes wasn’t painful enough, now there are allegations that Intuit Inc, the software run by Turbo Tax, failed to protect people from, yes you guessed it, data breaches. In fact, a putative class action was filed this week against Intuit Inc alleging the maker of the tax-preparation software was negligent in failing to protect them from identity theft by not safeguarding sensitive personal data. The complaint, filed by Turbo Tax users, claims Intuit’s actions resulted in billions of dollars in tax fraud.

Specifically, the Turbo Tax lawsuit, filed by lead plaintiffs Christine Diaz and Michelle Fugatt, claims Intuit’s lax controls placed revenue over ethics, leaving customers susceptible to third-party tax fraud. Further, the complaint states the despite a recent surge in fraudulent tax returns and massive data breaches, Intuit failed to correct the problem or properly report fraudulent tax filings to the IRS for fear of losing revenue.

“Plaintiffs allege that defendant’s negligent mishandling of fraudulent tax filings facilitated the theft of billions of tax dollars by cybercriminals by allowing thousands of fraudulent tax returns to be filed through use of its software,” the complaint states.

One month ago, Intuit stated it had received inquiries from the US Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission investigating earlier reports that 19 states had identified fraudulent returns using TurboTax software.

In February, Intuit temporarily stopped its state e-filing return program following announcements by Alabama, Minnesota and Utah departments of revenue that they had flagged TurboTax returns because of fraudulent activity.

According to the complaint, Intuit controls about 60 percent of the self-preparation software market. Terrific.

Diaz, who used TurboTax for a 2010 federal return and Ohio state return, learned in January 2015 that fraudulent state tax filings had been filed, purportedly on her behalf, in Michigan, Missouri, Ohio and Oklahoma, plus a federal filing with the IRS.

According to the lawsuit, Diaz received a $242.75 bill from TurboTax for e-flings that were allegedly not hers. She claims she had not entered any information in TurboTax’s system since 2011.

The complaint goes on to state that Intuit advised Diaz’s husband that fraudulent filings were made on her behalf but the company had not followed up to resolve the matter. Diaz is no longer eligible for electronic filing of her tax returns and is subject to ongoing credit monitoring.

According to the complaint, the exact number of plaintiffs is unknown but may be in the thousands as fraudulent tax filings in TurboTax customers’ names were generated and potentially millions of TurboTax customers’ data has been accessed.

The complaint, which accuses Intuit of violating California’s Unfair Competition Law and Customer Records Act, as well as negligence and breach of contract, seeks damages as well as an injunction ordering Intuit to step up its security procedures, among other relief.

“Rather than protecting customers’ personal and financial information by implementing stricter security measures, TurboTax has instead knowingly facilitated identity theft tax refund fraud by allowing cybercriminals easy access to its customers’ most private information,” the complaint states.

FYI—The case is Christine Diaz and Michelle Fugatt et al v. Intuit Inc., case number 5:15-cv-01778, in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Top Settlements

You delay you pay… Bingo! A $512 million settlement agreement has been reached in an antitrust lawsuit pending against Cephalon Pharmaceuticals. The lawsuit alleged the defendant delayed the introduction of a generic version of the drug Provigil into the market. Nice.

According to court documents, the agreement was reached between the class of direct purchasers and defendants Cephalon, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. and Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc. The other defendants in the case, Mylan Laboratories Inc. and Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., were not included in the settlement.

In the lawsuit, plaintiffs claimed that the settling defendants, referred to in the agreement as the Cephalon defendants, “violated federal antitrust law by wrongfully delaying the introduction of generic versions of the prescription drug Provigil (modafinil), a drug indicated for the treatment of certain sleep disorders.” The defendants did not admit liability in the agreement.

The class was defined as “all persons or entities in the United States and its territories who purchased Provigil in any form directly from Cephalon at any time during the period from June 24, 2006, through August 31, 2012.”

The agreement further states that up to 33-and-a-third percent of the overall payout will be sought as compensation. Incentive awards of $100,000 per named plaintiffs, specifically, King Drug Co. of Florence, Rochester Drug Cooperative Inc. and Burlington Drug Company Inc., and $50,000 each for Meijer Distribution Inc. and SAJ Distributors Inc.

Hokee Dokee- That’s a wrap folks…See you at the Bar!

Week Adjourned: 4.17.15 – Source Naturals, Southwest Airlines, HAMP Mortgages

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Source Naturals a little light on the content? According to a consumer fraud class action lawsuit filed this week, it is. The plaintiff alleges the amounts of vitamins and minerals in the vitamins are inaccurate.

In her Source Naturals complaint, Jennifer Dougherty alleges she purchased the products online for about $20 in November. According to the lawsuit, Source Naturals advertised that its multivitamins contained 12,500 IU per serving of vitamin A. Dougherty claims that the amounts of the of six vitamins and minerals in its multivitamins were off by as much as 90 percent, which was shown in tests. Those same tests also revealed that the vitamin B-3 contained in the product was about 19 percent less than represented; calcium per serving was about 22 percent less; zinc was under by about 24 percent; manganese was under by about 36 percent; and magnesium was under by about 12 percent than what Source Naturals claimed, according to the lawsuit.

The Source Naturals lawsuit is seeking class action status for those that purchased the multivitamins and seeks less than $5 million plus court costs. The $5 million figure represents a threshold for removal under the Class Action Fairness Act.

Southwest Early Bird Check-In a scam? At least one passenger thinks so. Teri Lowry filed a consumer fraud class action lawsuit over allegations the airline misleads customers into purchasing early flight check-ins, billed as “Early-Bird” priority boarding.

Specifically, the Southwest Airlines lawsuit contends that the airline deceived her into purchasing an “Early-Bird” priority boarding cost for a flight she took in March 2014 from Los Angeles to Indianapolis.

Lowry claims she purchased a “Wanna Get Away” ticket offered by Southwest, and then added on the “Early-Bird Check-in” feature for $25 roundtrip. She states in her lawsuit that she purchased the feature based on previous experience when she traveled with Southwest and received a “B” boarding group assignment.

The lawsuit states that when Lowry contacted others who had received a higher boarding position than she did for her trip to Indianapolis, none of them had purchased the “Early Bird Check-In.”

According to the complaint, Southwest Airlines allocates boarding in the order in which a customer checks in online, with boarding broken into three groups of about 60 board positions each. According to the lawsuit, Southwest Airlines’ website states customers can obtain an A boarding position by purchasing an “Early Bird Check-in.”

In her complaint, Lowry alleges Southwest’s website says customers who purchased “Anytime” fares receive priority over other fare types including “Early Bird Check-ins.” The lawsuit alleges that contradicts other areas of the website that say “Anytime” or “Wanna Get Away” fares don’t have priority over other fares.

Top Settlements

A $4.5 million settlement has been reached in a consumer banking deceptive practices violations class action lawsuit against a unit of Morgan Stanley (Saxon). The lawsuit was filed by homeowners who allege the finance company denied thousands of California homeowners new terms through the federal Home Affordable Modification Plan (HAMP), which they claim resulted in some people losing their homes.

The Morgan Stanley HAMP settlement is preliminary and requires final approval, which, if granted, would pay the approximate 2,705 class members an average of $1,663 each. According to court documents, the settlement represented about 15 percent of the roughly $30 million in total trial payments made by the class.

According to the lawsuit, plaintiff Marie Gaudin alleged Saxon delayed processing her loan while urging her to make trial payments as part of its Home Affordable Modification Program, meant for homeowners who were behind on loan payments. Saxon later pulled the offer of permanent loan modification without cause, according to the lawsuit.

If approved, 1,365 class members who lost their homes after Saxon denied them permanent loan modifications would be paid back. All class members would receive a base award of approximately $184, with tiered payments being made to those who lost their homes in foreclosures or short sales without being offered loan modifications, and to those who entered into alternative modifications elsewhere.

The class is defined as California borrowers who entered into HAMP TPPs with Saxon through October 1, 2009, and made at least three trial period payments but did not receive HAMP loan modifications.

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

Week Adjourned: 4.10.15 – Popular Wines, Cruise Texts, AT&T

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Have your hangovers been getting worse recently? Ok—you don’t have to answer, but maybe—just maybe—it’s not only you… A defective products class action lawsuit has been filed against 28 California wineries alleging that they produced wine which contains dangerously high levels of arsenic, in violation of California law. Nothing like a bit of poison to help the relaxation process.

Don’t know how the ball got rolling, but someone/entity had a total 1,306 different types of wine tested by BeverageGrades in Denver. The results showed that 83 wines had dangerously elevated levels of inorganic arsenic. Two additional labs confirmed the results. According to the arsenic in wine lawsuit, some of the wines contained arsenic levels in excess of the safe daily intake limit by 500%. Oh great.

And the news gets worse, because the majority of the wines listed in the complaint are inexpensive white or blush varieties, including Moscato, Pinot Grigio and Sauvignon Blanc. Popular brands named in the lawsuit include Franzia, Sutter Home, Wine Cube, Cupcake, Beringer and Vendange.

The lawsuit is seeking “injunctive relief, civic penalties, disgorgement and damages.”

Time to take up cocktails.

“All aboard whose coming aboard”…The operators of two cruise lines were hit with a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action lawsuit, alleging they’ve been sending unsolicited text messages to thousands of people’s cellular phones. And that’s not annoying, right?

Consolidated World Travel Inc., which does business as both Holiday Cruise Line and Bahamas Paradise Cruise Line, is the named defendant in the suit, which was filed by plaintiff Jason Huhn. The cruise text complaint alleges the Florida-based company sent Huhn an automated text message on his cellphone in March 2014 offering a free cruise. Free cruise? Really?

Huhn alleges the company never asked him for his consent to send him advertisements. “Defendants sent similar text messages to thousands of individuals nationwide using an automatic dialing system and without the consent of those individuals,” the complaint states. “At no point did plaintiff consent to receiving such text messages. At no point did plaintiff enter into a business relationship with defendants.”

According to the complaint, CWT sends automated text messages to individuals advertising a “free cruise” and providing a phone number that an individual must call to redeem the cruise. When the number in the text message is called, the caller is connected with a company identifying itself as “Travel Services.” The operator explains that he or she sees the caller is calling about a free cruise, and immediately “transfers” the caller to “Holiday Cruise Line,” the complaint states.

The lawsuit also names the cruise line’s Tampa-based marketing firm, Elite Marketing Inc., as well as CWT owner James H. Verrillo as defendants.

Top Settlements

Who said what you don’t know can’t hurt you? Well, Expose did sing it but…who knew about this? AT&T must pony up $25 million to resolve claims by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that the phone carrier failed to adequately safeguard personal data of approximately 300,000 customers. The data was stolen from call centers in Mexico, Colombia and the Philippines. Read: massive data breach.

According to the FCC, employees at call centers used by AT&T in the three countries accessed records belonging to roughly 280,000 U.S. customers without authorization. Those records were accessed without authorization, in order to obtain names, full or partial Social Security numbers and other protected account-related data. Terrific.

FYI—Those data are also known as customer proprietary network information, which require requests for handset unlock codes for AT&T mobile phones.

The FCC alleged in its complaint that the call center employees provided that data to unauthorized third parties, which included an entity that went by the alias El Pelon in Mexico, who appeared to have been trafficking in stolen or secondary market phones that they wanted to unlock. That entity allegedly used the information to make more than 290,000 unlock requests through AT&T’s website. Ringing any bells?

According to the terms of the settlement, AT&T, in addition to the $25 million penalty for the alleged violations of Sections 222 and 201 of the Communications Act, must also improve its privacy and data security practices by appointing a senior compliance manager who is a certified privacy professional, conducting a privacy risk assessment, implementing an information security program, preparing an appropriate compliance manual and regularly training employees on the company’s privacy policies and the applicable privacy legal authorities. You think?

Hokee Dokee- That’s a wrap folks…See you at the Bar!

Week Adjourned: 4.4.15 – Toyota Camry, Babies R Us, JP Morgan Chase

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Heads up Toyota Camry owners! The car maker is facing a defective products class action lawsuit alleging the car maker was aware of a defect in its Camry models that causes the cars’ air conditioning system to become moldy, emitting foul odors and potentially causing health problems.

Filed in Los Angeles earlier this week, the Toyota Camry lawsuit claims that Toyota’s 2012 Camry models have a “uniform and widespread defect” in the heating, ventilating and air conditioning systems that causes emissions of noxious and foul odors from the growth of mold in the system.

“Defendant has actively concealed and failed to disclose this defect to plaintiff and class members at the time of their purchase or lease of the class vehicles and thereafter,” the complaint states.

Further, the lawsuit contends that the affected Camry models’ HVAC system contains one or more design or manufacturing defect that causes the emissions of the bad odors from the mold. The plaintiffs allege that exposure to mold and its related smells is “extremely dangerous” and can lead to sickness, nasal stuffiness, eye irritation, wheezing and other health problems. Well, if it smells bad, it can’t be good for you, right?

The mold emanating from the HVAC system in the 2012 Toyota Camry vehicles allegedly grows on a part known as the evaporator, which is located inside the car dashboard. When cold refrigerant passes into the evaporator, it absorbs heat from the air in the passenger compartment and collects moisture from condensation, which creates a favorable growing condition for mold, the complaint claims.

When a consumer complains of the mold build-up in his or her Camry, Toyota “merely replaces” the defective HVAC components with the very same components, and doesn’t repair the defect, in violation of warranty, according to the lawsuit.

According to the plaintiffs, Toyota knew, or should have known, about the defect as early as 1997. However, the automaker “actively concealed” the defect and didn’t inform consumers.

Further, the complaint states that Toyota had “already offered” previous model year Camry vehicles that had similar HVAC systems and acknowledged the defects as early as 1997 and as recently as 2009.

The complaint seeks certification of a class of California purchasers of 2012 Camry vehicles.

Who’s really reaping the rewards here? Babies “R” Us, according to a consumer fraud class action lawsuit over allegations its rewards program was misleading and misrepresented what consumers actually receive when purchasing items from the retailer.

Filed by Stacy Tongate, the Babies R Us lawsuit claims that the Endless Earnings program promoted and run by Babies “R” Us offers shoppers up to 10 percent back on registry items purchased. The program, the lawsuit contends , is run in order to attract more customers to use the baby registry services.

According to the complaint, the popular children’s toy store launched the program in April 2014, offering benefits with no limits. However, The company in fact offers five percent of the first $300 spent by consumers. After the first $300, consumers are bumped up to 10 percent, Tongate claims.

The lawsuit is seeking class status for those who made purchases during the Endless Earnings program’s duration.

Top Settlements

JPMorgan Chase has agreed to pony up $950,000 …according to the terms of a preliminary settlement agreement reached in a California labor law class action lawsuit.The lawsuit was filed by the company’s California underwriters who alleged the bank failed to pay overtime and provide proper breaks. No comment.

The proposed agreement potentially ends the three-year-old lawsuit, which was filed by two loan modification underwriters who worked at a Chase location north of San Diego. They alleged the bank was in violation of federal and state labor laws and that they suffered from overwhelming workload requirements. Filed in 2012, by plaintiffs Mary Loeza and Angie Reveles, the suit claims that Chase saddled its underwriters with unrealistic quotas for processing mortgage loan modification applications that they could not achieve without working overtime.

The plaintiffs further claimed that Chase had a strict policy on approval of overtime and would punish employees who worked it without authorization, leaving employees to work off-the-clock and through meal breaks and rest periods to meet the elevated quota, according to the settlement agreement.

“Based on their knowledge of this action, plaintiffs determined that the settlement would constitute the best outcome for class members,” court documents state. “Likewise, Chase concluded that this action should be settled in order to avoid the expense, inconvenience and burden of further legal proceedings, and the uncertainties of trial and appeal.”

The proposed class consists of approximately 838 current and former Chase employees who worked at the bank between December 11, 2008, and the date the judge preliminarily approves the agreement. If certified, the settlement will see each class member receive a share of the settlement funds, fees and expenses are paid.

Hokee Dokee—That’s a wrap folks… Happy Easter! Go celebrate!

Week Adjourned: 3.27.15 – Dominos Pizza, Wen Haircare, AIG

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Heads up you pizza delivery folk!! Another proposed wage and hour class action lawsuit has been filed against 70 Domino’s Franchises stores, this time in California and Arizona, by a delivery driver who alleges Domino’s fails to reasonably reimburse drivers for the costs of using personal vehicles for work, in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and California labor laws.

Field by driver Derek Gibbins, the Dominos delivery lawsuit alleges franchise operator Hishmeh Enterprises Inc. uses a flawed method to determine reimburse rates. Specifically, it typically pays $1 per trip whch that does not accurately reflect costs incurred by drivers.

The complaint further claims that Hishmeh’s “systematic failure” to provide adequate reimbursement constitutes a “kickback” such that hourly wages paid to its drivers are not free and clear, resulting in net wages that fall beneath federal and state minimum-wage requirements in violation of the FLSA and state labor codes.

“The net effect of defendant’s flawed reimbursement policy is that it willfully fails to pay the federal and state minimum wage to its delivery drivers,” according to the complaint filed in California federal court. “Defendant thereby enjoys ill-gained profits at the expense of its employees.” Otherwise known as screwing your employees—allegedly.

The complaint alleges all Hishmeh drivers have similar experiences because they operate under the same reimbursement policy. The suit seeks to include an estimate of several hundred current and former Hishmeh delivery drivers in California over the past four years.

Wen will my hair stop falling out? Wen you stop using the product, although this has yet to be established. Wen Hair Products and marketing company Guthy-Renker got hit with a defective products class action lawsuit this week over allegations the line of products cause hair loss. Oh. Not so good.

The Wen haircare lawsuit, filed by women living in Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Minnesota, New Jersey and North Carolina, the plaintiffs all allege they have suffered severe hair loss after using ‘Wen Hair Products’.

The Wen line of products is designed, manufactured and sold by Chaz Dean, a Hollywood hair stylist, and Guthy-Renker. The defendants claim that the Wen hair products condition the hair, and limit or repair damage caused by regular hair treatments and daily styling. However, not advertised is the alleged severe and possibly permanent damage to hair, including hair loss to the point of visible bald spots and severe breakage, according to the plaintiffs.

According to the lawyer representing the plaintiffs, many of the women who have suffered damage called the companies for help, only to be told that their complaints were unusual. However, the companies had received prior, similar calls, which they did not disclose. You think?

Top Settlements

And the fallout from the 2008 mortgage-backed securities financial crisis continues… this week with final approval of a $970.5 million settlement granted by a judge for the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. Yes folks, this effectively ends the securities litigation brought by shareholders of the insurance giant American International Group (AIG). Remember them?

The securities lawsuit alleged that AIG misled investors about the subprime mortgage exposure that led to a liquidity crisis and over $180 billion in federal bailouts, to put is very simply. The investors alleged AIG failed to disclose risks it took on through its portfolio of credit default swaps and a securities lending program, leading them to buy stocks they otherwise would not have bought.

This settlement is among the largest class-action settlements to result from litigation of mortgage-backed securities and the 2008 financial crisis. The judge noted that no potential class member objected to the terms of the deal, leading her to determine it was “fair, reasonable and adequate.”

The settlement affects shareholders who bought AIG securities from March 16, 2006, to September 16, 2008.

Hokee Dokee—That’s a wrap folks…Time to adjourn for the week. See you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 3.20.15 – Homejoy, Target, Drywall Pricing

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Uhh…Maybe not Everyone Deserves a Happy Home? You’d think with a name like ”Homejoy Inc”, there’d be a lot of joy to go around. Well, maybe for the customer and business owners, but maybe not so much for the workers. The company is facing two potential employment class action lawsuits, alleging the company is in violation of California labor laws.

The house-cleaning business allegedly fails to pay its workers minimum wage or overtime, denies workers legally mandated breaks and requires house cleaners to incur their own business-related expenses, among other infractions, according to one lawsuit. Specifically, the lawsuit claims Homejoy misclassifies its workers as “cleaning professionals”–as independent contractors–rather than employees.

Additionally, the lawsuits allege Homejoy workers must wear a shirt with the Homejoy logo on it while servicing homes and can be subject to “performance improvement plans” if their ratings are too low. The complaints further claim that “cleaners are an integral part of Homejoy’s business of providing cleaning services, among other services, to its customers.”

The plaintiffs are seeking damages in the amount of unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid minimum-wage compensation, unpaid reimbursed business expenses, one hour of additional pay for each workday completed without meal breaks and another hour of compensation for each work day without rest breaks” all with interest. The Private Attorneys General Act action seeks civil penalties and attorney fees. Go get’em!

Top Settlements

Heads up all Target Customers: A $10 million settlement has been reached in the Target data breach class action lawsuit. If approved, the settlement will resolve multidistrict litigation (MDL) resulting from one of the largest data breaches to date, affecting as many as 110 million Target customers.

The data breach occurred late in 2013—one of many data breaches we’ve been reporting on recently—and compromised customers’ personal information including bank and debit card information. The settlement motion requests certification of a nationwide class of an estimated 110 million consumers whose credit or debit card information or other personal information was compromised following the breach.

If you ever needed a reason to keep your paperwork—this would be it. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, affected Target customers who can document their losses will be eligible for up to $10,000 in damages. For those who cannot produce documentation, a payment will be made from the remainder of the settlement fund, once outstanding costs are deducted. The remaining balance will be divided equally.

Additionally, the agreement stipulates that Target makes a greater effort to safeguard its customer data, which would include appointing a high-level executive as chief information security officer and maintaining a written information security program, as well as a process to monitor for information security events and to respond to any such events determined to present a threat.

Well, the proof is in the doing… we can only wait and see.

Sheetrock Settlement. A $55 million settlement has been reached in an antitrust multi-district litigation (MDL) alleging price-fixing among companies that make gypsum board, commonly called drywall, sheetrock or plasterboard. While that might seem like a lot for drywall—it’s reportedly a $5 billion dollar a year industry in the US.

Preliminary approval was granted by US District Senior Judge Michael Maylson of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. He has been overseeing the case since consolidation two years ago.

The defendant TIN has agreed to pay $5.25 million to settle claims from direct purchasers of drywall and $1.75 million to settle with indirect purchasers. Similarly, USG has agreed to pay $39.25 million to settle with the direct purchasers and $8.75 million to settle with indirect purchasers. The action isn’t quite over yet—as several defendants still need to settle.

Judge Baylson has also certified several classes of plaintiffs for the explicit purpose of facilitating the settlement and without having any effect on the still-ongoing litigation.

According to the complaint, the defendants account for more than 99 percent of drywall sold in North America. They are USG, National Gypsum, CertainTeed, Georgia-Pacific, American Gypsum, Lafarge, Temple-Inland (TIN) and PABCO. Well, if it wasn’t price-fixing it was certainly one hell of a coincidence.

Hokee Dokee—That’s a wrap folks…Time to adjourn for the week. See you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 3.13.15 – Tinder, Airline Tourist Tax, TVM (Mesh Implants)

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Come on baby, light my fire—oh—wait—did we mention there’s a charge? Tinder got hit with a consumer fraud class action lawsuit this week by a disgruntled user who alleges the social media company lures customers into signing up for its dating app by advertising it as being free and later charging customers if they want to continue using the app.

Filed by California resident Billy Warner, the Tinder lawsuit states the Tinder is running “a classic bait and switch” program, which results from the company’s recent announcement that it will begin charging customers $2.99 per month. Warner claims that he is “entrenched in the use” of the app and had he known that Tinder would charge for it, he would not have downloaded it. Really? Unlimited opportunities to hook up for less than the price of one designer coffee? You do the math. But the issue isn’t about whether they should charge…

“Defendant offered these free services with the goal in mind of enlisting a user base of tens or hundreds of millions of users, with the ultimate goal of later changing the rules of participation and deceptively and forcibly migrating a substantially percentage of its user based to a paid subscription model,” the complaint states.

Warner contends that “Had Defendant warned Plaintiff that additional fees may apply, Plaintiff would have reconsidered Plaintiff’s use of Defendant’s app….Failure to disclose that additional fees may apply unfairly induced Plaintiff’s downloading of Defendant’s app, as he reasonably believed it to be a ‘free’ service.” That’s the issue.

“Tinder has, up until now, allowed users to enjoy unlimited free swipes and has been a free app,” according to the lawsuit. “Tinder has never advertised, represented, or otherwise indicated to its customers, including plaintiff, that the use of its services will require any form or payment.”

Warner discovered that he would have to pay $2.99 per month to continue using the app when he was notified that he was out of “likes” and that he could purchase unlimited “likes” for $2.99 per month.

“[Tinder’s] abrupt policy change constitutes an unfair and deceptive trade practice, put into place to forcibly migrate users to paid subscription services, in order to receive the same services that had previously been provided and advertised free of charge,” the class action lawsuit states.

The class seeks to represent a California class of Tinder users, who downloaded the app before March 2.

Warner is charging Tinder with violating the California False Advertising Act and unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent conduct according to California’s Unfair Competition Law. U.S. District Court for the Central District of California case number 2:15-cv-01668.

Heads up Mexican Nationals who have traveled home since June 1999… A consumer fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against several airlines by a group of Mexican nationals who allege they have been forced to pay a “Mexico tourism tax” they weren’t obligated to pay. The plaintiffs claim they have paid millions of dollars in this tax to airlines including United Airlines Inc. and Delta Airlines Inc.

The Mexican tourist tax lawsuit claims violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, specifically that the airlines wrongfully charged the plaintiffs, including children under the age of 2 who took flights between the US and Mexico, $20 to $25 for the Mexico Tourism Tax. They allege the airlines fraudulently represent to passengers that the Mexican government requires them to collect the tax, then keep the proceeds.

The Mexican tax is mandatory charged to certain travelers who arrive in Mexico on flights originating outside the county. However, Mexican nationals, residents and children under the age of two are exempt from the tax, according to the suit.

According to the allegations, an arrangement was reached between the airlines and the government in June 1999 to collect the tax but was actively concealed from the public by the defendants for many years. The airlines knew which passengers wouldn’t be subject to the tax because they would know their passport numbers and nationalities once they purchased their tickets, according to the complaint.

“Under the agreement, the defendants agreed to have mechanisms in place to distinguish the cases in which the Mexico tourism tax does not apply,” the suit states. “Since 1999 (or about the dates that each defendant began operating flights to/from Mexico), rather than collect only the tax that should have been charged … the defendants on information and belief, have obtained, retained, and reinvested those improperly collected taxes into their respective operations.”

Other airlines named as defendants in the proposed class action are American Airlines Inc., AeroVias de Mexico SA de CV, Concesionaria Vuela Compania de Aviacion, SAPI de CV, ABC Aerolineas SA de CV, and US Airways Inc.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of Mexican nationals, guardians of children under the age of two at the time of travel and foreigners with resident status in Mexico who flew between the U.S. and Mexico beginning in June 1999.

The case is Almanza et al. v. United Airlines, Inc. et al., case number 2:15-cv-00033 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia.

Top Settlements

Mesh mess continues… Ethicon, the division of Johnson & Johnson that makes TVT Abbrevo, one of many transvaginal mesh products that are the subject of several thousand lawsuits, has been found liable and ordered to pay $5.7 million to plaintiff Coleen Perry.

The jury hearing Perry’s case deliberated for three days and found that Ethicon’s conduct regarding the TVT Abbrevo vaginal sling amounted to “malice,” her lawyer said. They awarded Perry $700,000 in compensatory damages and an additional $5 million in punitive damages.

This Ethicon verdict makes the fourth against the company. Currently, over 36,000 lawsuits have been filed against the TVT manufacturer in both state and federal courts, all alleging the devices, which are used to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse, are defectively designed and result in significant personal injury.

Perry claimed the Abbrevo mesh began to erode in her body, causing pain that she said she expects to last the rest of her life, Reuters reported.

The FDA approved Abbrevo, one of Ethicon’s newer models of mesh products, in 2010, specifically to treat stress urinary incontinence. Perry, received her implant in 2011. She said she began experiencing a “pulling-type” pain almost immediately after surgery, Reuters reports.

The case is Perry et al v. Luu et al, Superior Court of the State of California, Kern County, No. 5-1500-CV-279123.

Hokee Dokee- That’s a wrap folks…Time to adjourn for the week. See you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 3.6.15 – Facebook, Celgene, Tech Workers

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Is it Facebook’s Time to Face the Ringtone? Maybe…the social media giant is facing a proposed Telephone Consumer protection Act (TCPA) class action lawsuit alleging it sends unwanted text messages to peoples’ cellphones notifying them that their accounts have been logged into. The $5 million complaint alleges that Facebook knowingly violated the TCPA by sending these unwanted text messages. According to the Facebook lawsuit, Facebook provides an “extra security feature” in which it sends log-in notifications to alert users when their account is accessed from a new device. However, these text messages are allegedly sent, in some cases several times a day, to people who haven’t given Facebook authorization to do so, who have asked Facebook to stop this practice, and who allegedly do not even have Facebook accounts. Question—how does FB acquire emails of people who don’t have FB accounts?

Servicing over a billion Facebook accounts worldwide, Facebook’s automated systems are powerful and, when used improperly, capable of extreme invasions into the privacy of American consumers,” the complaint states. “Facebook operates a sloppy system and in doing so shows complete disregard for the privacy of consumers.”

According to lead plaintiff Noah Duguid, Facebook began sending text messages to his cellphone in January 2014, without his having given his cell phone number to FB, or his having had any business dealings with the social media company. Oh, you just gotta love that.

After Duguid allegedly sent the defendant a detailed email in April 2014 complaining about the messages and asking that they stop, Facebook replied with an automatic email telling him to log on to its website to report the problematic content. This continued until the following October when Duguid allegedly responded to an Facebook text using the word “off”. After this, the company replied “Facebook texts are now off. Reply on to turn them back on.” Regardless, the company continued to text Duguid, according to the complaint.

The proposed TCPA class action lawsuit seeks to represent a class of individuals in the U.S. who didn’t give Facebook their cell number and received one or more of the accused texts within the four years before the filing of the complaint, and a class of individuals who received texts in the same time frame despite telling Facebook they didn’t want them. Plaintiff seeks at least $500 in damages for each violation of the TCPA. Go baby go!

FYI—the case is Noah Duguid et al. v. Facebook Inc., case number 3:15-cv-00985, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

How Much is the Medicine Worth? There’s the $65 million dollar question facing Celgene Corp. They were hit with an antitrust class action lawsuit filed by The City of Providence in New Jersey, alleging the pharmaceutical company monopolized the market for two of its blockbuster cancer drugs by blocking its competitors’ access to samples necessary to bring generic versions to market.

According to the potential class action, Celgene is using risk evaluation and mitigation strategies, a federal drug safety measure, to prevent competitors such as Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. from gaining access to samples for Thalomid and Revlimid. Those samples are necessary for the Food and Drug Administration test for generic equivalency.

According to the lawsuit, “Due to Celgene’s monopolistic and anticompetitive conduct, plaintiff, and all other consumers and third-party payors, paid higher prices to treat leprosy and multiple myeloma than they otherwise would have absent Celgene’s conduct.” Specifically, the plaintiff alleges those prices have risen upwards of 3,400 percent since the initial approval of the treatments by the FDA in 1998. The lawsuit contends that one Revlimid pill sells for approximately $500.

The suit is City of Providence v. Celgene Corporation, case number 2:15-cv-01605, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Top Settlements

I’m betting there’s a lot of happy tech engineers in Silicon Valley this week. A $415 million settlement has received preliminary approval ending a closely watched antitrust class action lawsuit filed by tech workers in Silicon valley. The lawsuit alleged that Apple Inc., Google Inc., Intel Corp., and Adobe Systems Inc., conspired to refrain from poaching each other’s employees thereby limiting job mobility and, consequently, keeping salaries at a standstill. Nice.

The antitrust class action lawsuit was filed in 2011, and was based largely on emails in which Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, former GoogleChief Executive Officer Eric Schmidt and some of their rivals detailed plans to avoid poaching each other’s prized engineers.

Nearly 64,000 workers are affected by the case. They accused the companies of a corporate conspiracy to make it difficult for tech workers to negotiate better jobs at rival companies.

Judge Lucy Koh said she was satisfied this week after the companies increased their earlier offer of $324.5 million. Let’s hope this deal get’s final approval.

Hokee Dokee- That’s a wrap folks…Time to adjourn for the week. See you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 2.27.15 – Beneful, Lenovo, Big Tobacco

Top Class Action Lawsuits

An Urgent Heads Up for Dog Owners…Nestle Purina Petcare Company is facing a consumer fraud class action lawsuit alleging its dog food Beneful contains toxic substances which can kill dogs. Filed by Frank Lucido, the lawsuit claims that the dog food is to blame for either the deaths or serious illnesses of thousands of dogs.

The Beneful lawsuit claims that while Beneful is advertised as a healthful and nutritional dog food, the Lucido’s experience and others has been the opposite. Specifically, the lawsuit claims that Beneful dog foods contain propylene glycol, which is “an automotive component that is a known animal toxin and is poisonous to cats and dogs.”

Further, the Lucidos claim that Beneful also contains mycotoxins, which are “a group of toxins produced by fungus that occurs in grains, which are a principle ingredient in Beneful.” The lawsuit cites the Association for Truth In Pet Food, which tested “Beneful Original and found that it contained dangerous levels of mycotoxins.”

According to the complaint, Lucido had a German Shepherd, an English Bulldog and a Labrador. In late December 2014 or January 2015 he purchased his first bag of Beneful dog food which he fed to each dog and which each dog began eating exclusively. On January 15, Lucido’s German Shepherd began to lose a large amount of hair and he began to have an unusual odor. Two days later the German Shepherd became violently ill, the lawsuit claims.

After being examined by a veterinarian, it was determined that the German Shepherd was suffering from internal bleeding in the dog’s stomach and the liver was also malfunctioning, which the veterinarian said was “consistent with poisoning.” Then, on January 23, the Lucidos found their English Bulldog dead in the yard. “Post-mortem veterinary examination revealed signs of internal bleeding in the dog’s stomach and lesions on his liver, much like [the German Shepherd],” the class action lawsuit claims. The Lucido’s Labrador is also now ill and is being tested for similar problems.

According to the lawsuit, the Lucidos “have suffered economic losses including the purchase price of Beneful and veterinary and related medical expenses” as result of the harm Beneful caused their dogs.

The lawsuit states that over 3,000 similar complaints have been posted by dog owners on the Internet “about dogs becoming ill, in many cases very seriously ill, and/or dying after eating Beneful.”

“The dogs show consistent symptoms, including stomach and related internal bleeding, liver malfunction or failure, vomiting, diarrhea, dehydration, weight loss, seizures, bloating, and kidney failure,” the lawsuit states.

The Beneful lawsuit seeks representation for two classes, specifically, a nationwide class and a California subclass for dog owners “who purchased Beneful dog food in the past four years and who incurred any out of pocket costs due to illness, injury or death of their dog resulting from the ingestion of Beneful.”

The class action lawsuit claims Nestle Purina is in breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, strict products liability, violating California’s consumer legal remedies act, violating California’s Unfair Competition Law, and violating California’s False Advertising Law.

The Lucidos are represented by Jeffrey B. Cereghino of Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopcyzynski, by John Yanchunis of Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group, by Karl Molineux of Merrill, Nomura & Molineux, and by Donna F. Solen of Kimbrell Kimbrell & Solen LLC.

The Beneful Toxic Dog Food Class Action Lawsuit is Frank Lucido v. Nesltle Purina Petcare Company, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Deeply Creepy. A proposed spyware class action lawsuit has been filed against Lenovo and Superfish Inc, makers of software installed on many different types of Lenovo laptops, alleging the companies are in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Federal Wiretap Act, the Stored Communications Act, as well as California’s Invasion of Privacy Act and its Unfair Competition Law.

Filed in California on behalf of a proposed class of Lenovo customers, the class action alleges the company sold computers preloaded with Superfish software which is capable of tracking customers’ online activity and leaving their computers vulnerable to hackers. Nice.

“Lenovo never disclosed the Superfish program and took affirmative steps to conceal it from consumers because the program is generally considered to be spyware, adware or malware and, aside from the fact that it allows companies to spy on user’s every move online, the program also creates serious security issues for any consumer accessing the Internet with a Lenovo notebook computer on which the Superfish program has been installed,” according to the legal documents. Does this nonsense ever end? Where is Edward Snowdon?

The lawsuit is Sterling International Consulting Group v. Lenovo, 15-807, and includes common law claims of trespassing and fraud, as well as a claim of negligent misrepresentation.

Top Settlements

The Last Gasp—the Final Puff—? Maybe, just maybe. Big tobacco reached a $100 million settlement this week, potentially ending something like 400 personal injury lawsuits winding their way through a courtroom near you. Well, actually, Florida. The lawsuits are pending against Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Lorillard Tobacco Co, and stem from the landmark Engle v. Liggett Group Inc. class action against tobacco companies that was decertified in 2006 by the Florida Supreme Court.

The potential tobacco settlement resolves only those cases pending in federal court, and if approved, would see R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris each pay $42.5 million, and Lorillard $15 million.

The deal remains subject to the approval of all of the individual plaintiffs in the cases covered by the agreement. In the meantime, the affected cases have been stayed pending approval of the deal.

Hokee Dokee- That’s a wrap folks…Time to adjourn for the week. See you at the bar!