Consumer Fraud

Week Adjourned: 3.21.14 – Fitbit, McDonald’s, Canon

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top stories include Fitbit Force, McDonald’s and Canon.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Fitbit ‘n Burn? We all know the benefits of exercise, and let’s face it—anything we can find to help motivate us has to be a good thing, right? This week, the makers of an activity tracker got hit with a class action…Fitbit, the manufacturer of the Fitbit Force, is facing a consumer fraud class action lawsuit over advertising claims that the device is an “advanced activity tracker.” The device was recalled following reports of skin irritation including blisters, rashes, burns and more. The firm has received about 9,900 reports of the wristband causing skin irritation and about 250 reports of blistering.

According to the lawsuit, Fitbit advertised that the Force is a safe, comfortable, nonhazardous device but at no time during the promotion or marketing of the Force product did Fitbit warn its customers or the general public of any adverse health consequences.

“Fitbit promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed and sold the Fitbit as a health and wellness product to consumers specifically interested in tracking, monitoring, measuring, and improving their overall health and wellness,” the lawsuit states. “When worn and operated as intended, the Force product causes physical injuries included but not limited to skin irritation, rashes, burns, blisters, cuts, boils, open wounds, redness, itching, cracking, peeling, or any other physical injuries.”

The lawsuit, entitled The case is Jim Spivey v. Fitbit Inc. et al., case number 37-2014-00007109, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, seeks class action status and damages for consumers who bought the Force as a result of Fitbit’s alleged misrepresentations about the product’s safety.

More for McDonald’s….McDonald’s got served with two wage and hour class action action lawsuits in Michigan claiming the fast food giant is systematically stealing employees’ wages by forcing them to work off the clock, shaving hours off their time cards, and not paying them overtime among other practices.

In the lawsuits, filed against McDonald’s Corp., its U.S. subsidiary and two Detroit-area franchisees, workers assert McDonald’s regularly forces workers to show up for work at a scheduled time but then has them wait without pay until the store gets busy enough, and that it routinely violates minimum wage laws such as the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Michigan’s minimum wage law.

The suits contend that, using McDonald’s franchisor standards and corporation-provided software, McDonald’s franchisees closely monitor the ratio of labor costs to revenues. When it exceeds a corporate-set target, managers tell workers arriving for their shifts to wait for up to an hour to clock in, and sometimes direct workers who have already clocked in for scheduled shifts to clock out for extended breaks until the target ratio is again achieved. Workers are not paid for these wait times, and McDonald’s Corporation knowingly tolerates this practice, in violation of federal labor law.

The lawsuits also allege that McDonald’s forces its low-paid workers to buy their own uniforms. Because McDonald’s restaurants pay at or near the minimum wage, this drives some workers’ real wages below the legal minimum, in violation of federal labor law.

Top Settlements

Canon Techs Win preliminary wage and hour settlement… Preliminary approval has been granted for a $4.4 million settlement in a wage and hour class action lawsuit pending against Canon Business Solutions. The lawsuit was brought by a group of service technicians who alleged the defendant docked workers for lunch breaks they didn’t take and failed to pay them for overtime worked.

The lawsuit, Steven Jones, et al. v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc, case number 2:12-cv-07195, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, was filed by named plaintiffs Steven Jones and Javier Crespo, who will each receive $8,500 in incentive awards. Filed in July 2012, the lawsuit claims Canon violated New York labor law as well as California labor laws, in addition to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The plaintiffs also allege that Canon’s time-keeping system automatically accounted for breaks of 45 minutes, even in the event the service technicians took shorter breaks. In some cases, the lawsuit contends, the workers “took no meal period because [Canon’s] practice of scheduling work assignments, and its own directives to [the workers], did not permit them to take those meal breaks.” Even in that instance, they said, Canon docked the workers’ pay.

The settlement, if approved, will establish a fund of $4.4 million for the service technicians in the class, and lawyers’ fees. Cha Ching!

According to the terms of the settlement, there are three classes of eligible plaintiffs, namely: New York, service technicians who worked in that state at any time from October 9, 2006, until March 14, 2014; California, service technicians who worked in that state at any time between July 19, 2008, and March 14, 2014; and FLSA, those who worked as service technicians in any other state from June 12, 2010, through to March 14, 2014.

A final hearing is set for September.

Ok Folks, That’s all for this week. See you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 2.28.14 – Obamacare Staff, Home Depot, Eden Memorial

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending February 28, 2014. Top class actions include Obamacare Staff, Home Depot, Eden Memorial

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Is Maximus Maximizing an Unpaid Wages Scam on the Back of Obamacare? A call center unpaid wages class action lawsuit has been filed by employees at an Obamacare call center in Idaho, alleging the contractor, Maximus Inc, miscategorized employees as exempt for overtime, and is in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). So, they clearly think so.

Specifically, the putative Obamacare call center wage and hour class action lawsuit alleges that most employees worked between 50 and 60 hours a week beginning in the summer of 2013, without receiving compensation for the overtime, and that they were made to clock off before they had actually finished their shifts. Additionally, the lawsuit alleges the employees were unable to take mandatory breaks including lunch.

The class action contains two putative sub classes, one consisting of first level supervisors, and the second of call center employee trainers at the Boise, Idaho branch.

Are you Getting Hosed by Home Depot? Home Depot USA Inc is facing a consumer fraud class action lawsuit filed by a customer who alleges the do-it-yourself retail giant sells a line of defective expandable garden hoses that can rupture soon after purchase. An infomercial marketing firm, Telebrands, is also named as a defendant.

Specifically, the Home Depot lawsuit contends that the “Pocket Hose” and “Mini Max Hose” aren’t durable, and are not made of “heavy-duty fire hose construction,” as the companies advertise. Filed by plaintiff Micahel Klemballa, the Pocket Hose lawsuit states “In fact, the design of the Pocket Hose product is fundamentally defective and thus not suitable to be used as a garden hose as advertised.” “When used as instructed, the Pocket Hose will leak and/or burst, rendering the product useless.”

Klemballa alleges that he purchased a Pocket Hose in June which ruptured after he used it just a few times. He contends that thousands of similar complaints can be found on various product review websites and message boards.

The lawsuit, entitled Klemballa v. Telebrands Corp. et al., case number 2:14-cv-01245, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey goes on to states that in its online advertisements and infomercials, Telebrands misleadingly represents the Pocket Hose as “strong enough for any tough job,” backing the claim with a purported demonstration of the hose pulling a 5,000-pound sport utility vehicle.

However, according to the complaint, the hose, which retails for between $12.99 and $42.99, depending on length, is not even strong enough to withstand normal residential use. (Should I be surprised?) Klemballa states that Home Depot adopted many of Telebrands’ false and misleading claims about the product for in-store displays and ads on its website, and reviewed and approved advertising materials that included the retailer’s own logos and trademarks.

“Defendants’ false and misleading claims are in willful and wanton disregard of the interests of the consuming public, and constitute a knowing attempt by defendants to deceive consumers,” the complaint states.

The lawsuit seeks class certification to represent all consumers who have purchased the Pocket Hose in the US, along with a subclass of New York purchasers.

Top Settlements

Let’s hope this isn’t a trend. Service Corporation International (SCI) has reached settlement of a consumer fraud class action lawsuit involving allegations its employees desecrated graves at its Eden Memorial Park.

Specifically, the Eden Memorial class action, brought in 2009 on behalf of 25,000 Jewish families with loved ones buried at Eden Memorial, claimed that for 25 years, SCI employees routinely broke open outer burial containers and caskets and discarded human remains in a dump area on the cemetery grounds to make room for more graves.

SCI is a publicly traded company that runs the largest collection of the “death-care businesses” in the U.S. It has 1,644 funeral homes and 514 cemeteries in 43 states and the District of Columbia.

On February 27, the company announced it had reached a settlement of the lawsuit, four weeks into a trial in California state court. SCI said it would create a settlement fund of $35.25 million, of which $25.25 million will be contributed by insurance companies.

SCI denied any wrongdoing.

Ok Folks, That’s all for this week. See you at the bar !

Week Adjourned: 1.31.14 – Amazon, OxyElite, Hyundai

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements including Amazon wag and hour lawsuit, OxyElite weight loss and Hyundai gas mileage.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Discount Wages as Well as Products? Well, we’re about to find out. Amazon got hit with an employment class action lawsuit filed by Plaintiff Kelly Pavuk (“Pavuk”) (Case No. 2013-11565-0, in the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas) who alleges Amazon failed to compensate her adequately for time working at the Amazon facility in Pennsylvania. Pavuk makes this claim on behalf of herself and other similarly situated.

Specifically, the Amazon lawsuit claims the defendants failed to comply with the requirements of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (“PMWA”), thereby violating the PMWA by not compensating all Warehouse Workers during the end-of-shift screening process that “approximately takes between 10 and 20 minutes, and, with delays … can last longer.”

Further, the lawsuit claims the defendants violated the PMWA by not compensating all Warehouse Workers for passing through the same screening process during meal breaks or for walking to that screening area. And, the lawsuit claims the defendants “automatically deduct 30 minutes from Warehouse Workers’ compensable time each shift for an unpaid meal break,” “require Warehouse Workers to remain at their work locations within the Facility until the start of the purported 30-minute meal break,” and that “[a]fter the start of the 30-minute meal break, Warehouse Workers walk to the [Facility’s] time clocks and clock-out.”

Okee dokee. One to watch.

OxyElite “light” on the Facts… including possible liver injury? A proposed defective products class action lawsuit has been filed against General Nutrition Center Holdings Inc., and USPLabs LLC, alleging OxyElite Pro energy and weight loss dietary supplements cause liver damage.

Filed by Sandeep Barot, the OxyElite lawsuit (U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey at Camden case number: 1:14-cv-000562) claims that OxyElite Pro is intended to safely provide weight loss, energy and mental focus, however, it instead causes severe adverse health effects.

The OxyElite complaint alleges that USPLabs sells a variety of energy and weight loss and dietary supplements under the brand name of OxyElite Pro through GNC, which are dangerous, sold pursuant to deceptive and unfair practices and are not fit for their intended purpose.

Barot claims that he and all others similarly situated “did not bargain for a product that causes adverse health effects in exchange for their payment of purchase price,” according to the lawsuit. And the lawsuit goes on to state that several adverse reactions, including serious liver injury and wrongful death, have been reported from consumers who have purchased and ingested the product.

According to the complaint, USPLabs and GNC had actual knowledge of the product’s shortcomings, but both failed to timely act to adequately warn consumers of the unfitness of the product, the extreme adverse side effects associated with the product or provide adequate relief to the class of consumers who purchased the product.

Further, On October 11, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a warning letter to USPLabs regarding OxyElite Pro for its inclusion of aegeline or dimethylamylamine, known as DMAA, the lawsuit states.

Barot claims that he purchased the product based on claims made by the manufacturer that the products would safely produce energy, increase weight loss and increase mental focus so long as the consumer used the product as directed. However, Barot alleges he suffered economic damages as a result of purchasing and using the product. Further, he claims that neither himself nor any other reasonable consumer would have purchased the product had they known about the severe adverse effects the product can cause to humans, the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants are in violation of the New Jersey Consume Fraud Act and was unjustly enriched at the plaintiffs’ expense.

Um, back to diet and exercise, I guess…

Top Settlements

Hyundai Canada to Shell out Cash for False Mileage Claims. This week, the automaker announced that it has entered into an agreement with plaintiffs in Canada—representing current and former owners and lessees of vehicles affected by the auto company’s November 2012 restatement of fuel economy ratings. The adjustment affected approximately 130,000 Hyundai 2011-2013 model year vehicles, increasing their combined city/highway fuel consumption by 0.2-0.8 L/100km. While today’s agreement is valued at up to $46.65 million in cash compensation plus other available options, that number is dependent on how many customers elect to participate in the settlement’s one-time lump sum payment option or remain in the existing reimbursement program Hyundai introduced at the time of the restatement.

At the time of the restatement, Hyundai provided a reimbursement program to cover the additional fuel costs associated with the rating change—plus a 15 percent premium in acknowledgement of the inconvenience—to customers for as long as they owned or leased an affected vehicle. Affected owners and lessees are compensated based on their actual kilometers driven and the fuel costs for the region in which they live.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, a single lump sum payment will be provided as an option to the original reimbursement program. The lump sum payments will vary by type of vehicle, and will be reduced for any amounts already received through Hyundai’s existing reimbursement program. For example, an individual owner who purchased a new 2012 Elantra would receive a lump sum payment of $361, minus any previous reimbursement payments. Affected Hyundai owners may elect the one-time lump sum cash payment or remain in the auto company’s ongoing reimbursement program for as long as they lease or own the affected vehicle; the choice is theirs. Consumers can also elect other options, such as a dealership credit of 150 percent of the lump sum cash payment amount, or a credit of 200 percent of the cash amount toward the purchase of a new Hyundai vehicle.

Courts in Ontario and Quebec are expected to review the agreement for approval in early 2014. Assuming approval is granted, notices will then be provided to all affected customers.

Hopefully the snow will have stopped by then—and the roads will be driveable!

Ok Folks, That’s all for this week. See you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 1.24.14 – Apple, Truck Stop Fees, $27.5M for Asbestos

The week’s top class action lawsuits including Apple, Comdata truck stop fees, and asbestos mesothelioma hits a young victim.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Bad Apple! Tech giant Apple Inc, got slapped with a class action lawsuit this week, you may have seen it, alleging the company illegally collected and sold its customers’ personal information. Filed in Boston by plaintiffs Adam Christensen, Jeffrey Scolnick, and William Farrell, the Apple lawsuit alleges “Apple compelled its customers to provide their zip codes when making credit card transactions at Apple stores.” Here’s hoping they don’t get hacked!

This type of data collection is prohibited by state law which makes it unnecessary for customers to submit any personal identification information (PIN) that’s not directly necessary to the transaction. Apple collected the zip codes of their customers in violation of this statute, the plaintiffs argue, then sold that data to third-party companies for marketing purposes.

According to the Apple lawsuit, plaintiffs Adam Christensen, Jeffrey Scolnick, and William Farrell shopped for and purchased items from Apple retail stores in Massachusetts between 2012 and 2013. “To consummate each purchase, plaintiffs elected to use their credit card as their chosen form of payment,” the lawsuit states. “As a condition of using their credit cards, plaintiffs were required by Apple to enter personal identification information associated with the credit card, including their full and complete zip codes. Apple would not allow plaintiff to complete their purchases without supplying such information.”

“Apple is not required by credit card issuers to require this information from consumers,” the lawsuit claims, which suggests that Apple is in violation of state law.

The lawsuit notes that Apple acknowledges openly on their website that they reserve the right to “make certain personal information available to strategic partners that work with Apple to provide products and services, or that help Apple market to customers.” “First, Plaintiffs and the Class have been injured because they have received unwanted marketing materials from Apple as a result of having provided their zip codes when using credit cards at Apple. Second, Plaintiffs and the Class have been injured by Apple’s sale of Plaintiffs’ and the Class’ PII to third-parties, which was collected by Apple in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws chapter. 93 § 105(c).And third, Plaintiffs and the Class have been injured because Apple misappropriated their economically valuable PII without consideration,” the lawsuit states.

If the court agrees, Apple would be deemed responsible for committing what the state of Massachusetts considers an “unfair and deceptive trade practice.” The plaintiffs are reportedly asking Apple to pay $75 per violation, as well as interest on those damages, litigation expenses, attorneys’ fees, and “such other and further relief as may be just and proper.” Apple would also be required to stop collecting PINs across the state.

So—one to watch…

Top Settlements

Relief at the Truck Stop? A massive $130 million antitrust settlement made the books this week, potentially affecting some 4,000 independent truck stops and other retail fueling merchants. (That’s alota dosh!) The antitrust lawsuit is against Comdata Inc., the leading trucker fleet payment card issuer, and three national truck stop chains for a combined amount of $130 million plus valuable prospective relief in the form of enforceable changes to certain of Comdata’s allegedly anticompetitive business practices.

This lawsuit has been in the works since 2007!

The back story—Comdata operates a payment card network used by over-the-road truckers and fleets to purchase fuel and other items at truck stops and other retail fueling merchants. The lawsuit alleged that Comdata imposed anticompetitive provisions in its agreements with class members that artificially inflated the fees these truck stops and other retail fueling merchants paid when accepting the card for payment. The lawsuit also challenged allegedly anticompetitive arrangements among Comdata, its parent company Ceridian LLC, and three national truck stop chains: defendants TravelCenters of America LLC and its wholly owned subsidiaries, Pilot Travel Centers LLC and its predecessor Pilot Corporation, and Love’s Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc.

The Plaintiffs alleged that Comdata, with the assistance of its parent, Ceridian, engaged in anticompetitive behavior with the truck stop chains in which the chains agreed not to compete with Comdata in exchange for Comdata providing the chains with a transaction fee advantage versus their smaller, independent truck stop competitors. Plaintiffs alleged that this conduct insulated Comdata from competition, enhanced its market power, and led to independent truck stops’ paying artificially inflated transaction fees.

If its approved, these settlements would resolve all claims of the named Plaintiffs and the proposed class in exchange for aggregate payments from all defendants totaling $130 million plus a legally binding commitment from Comdata for prospective relief in the form of changes to certain allegedly anticompetitive contractual provisions in its merchant agreements. Plaintiffs and Co-Lead Class Counsel believe that this relief will promote competition among payment cards used by over-the-road fleets and truckers and lead to lower merchant fees for the independent truck stops.

FYI—the Comdata truck stop fee settlement approval process is expected to take several months. The named Plaintiffs and proposed Class representatives are Marchbanks Truck Service, Inc. d/b/a Bear Mountain Travel Stop, Gerald F. Krachey d/b/a Krachey’s BP South, and Walt Whitman Truck Stop, Inc.

Asbestos Settlement for Young Victim. This is sad, bittersweet Justice. Forty-year old John Panza, an English professor at Cuyahoga Community College and drummer with a popular Cleveland rock trio, Blaka Watra, has been awarded $27.5 million in settlement of his asbestos mesothelioma lawsuit. The settlement is reportedly the largest award of its kind ever in Ohio.

Panza was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2012, resulting from prolonged second-hand or take home exposure to clothing worn by his father, who picked up the asbestos dust at his job at the Eaton Airflex brake company. John Panza Sr., 52, died of lung cancer in 1994. He had worked at Airflex for 31 years, and previously served as president of the company’s union.

The asbestos brake pads were manufactured by the former National Friction Products Corp. John Jr. and his wife Jane, filed suit against Kelsey-Hayes Co., the Michigan-based successor to National Friction Products, and the lone remaining defendant at the time of the verdict, returned December 18, 2013.

The verdict breaks down the settlement as economic damages of $515,000 and $12 million in non-economic damages. The jury also awarded Jane Panza, who is just 37, $15 million for her loss of consortium claim, or the deprivation of the benefits of a family relationship due to her husband’s asbestos mesothelioma.

The eight-member jury attributed 60 percent of the liability to Kelsey-Hayes, finding that the company’s brake products were defective and primarily responsible for causing Panza’s cancer.

The Panza’s testimony was emotional, according to the judge. The couple went to high school and attended college together They have a 6-year-old daughter.

Prior to the trial, Panza underwent four separate surgeries and almost died, said John Mismas, one of Panza’s lawyers. Panza’s right lung was removed, and the invasive cancer is almost certain to eventually spread to his left lung, he said. “He’s going to die,” Mismas said.

Ok Folks, That’s all for this week. See you at the bar.

Week Adjourned: 1.17.14 – Stewart’s Shops, Brazilian Blowout, Elite Models

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top stories this week include Stewart’s Shops, Brazilian Blowout and Elite Model Management.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Stewart’s not-so-sweet deal for employees? According to company staff, yes indeedy. They filed an unpaid wage and hour class action lawsuit against Stewart’s Shops alleging violations of state and federal wage and hour laws.

Filed on January 9, 2014, in Federal District Court (Northern District of New York), the Stewart’s wage and hour lawsuit specifically claims that Stewart’s Shops failed to compensate employees for all hours worked by routinely requiring employees to perform work before and after their scheduled shifts without compensation.

The lawsuit also alleges that the defendant routinely deprived employees of mandatory meal breaks; failed to implement an accurate and effective method to record time worked by employees; failed to provide employees with mandatory disclosures concerning their rate of pay; and failed to pay for the cost to launder and maintain required uniforms.

The lawsuit is seeking class action status on behalf of 4,500 current and former Stewart’s Shops employees throughout New York and Vermont. FYI- Stewart’s Shops, headquartered in Saratoga Springs, NY, operates over 300 stores located across upstate New York and southern Vermont.

Top Settlements

What a Blow Out! It’s approved! The proposed $4.5 million settlement in the Brazilian Blowout class action lawsuit has received final approval. Cast your minds back to 2013 – when a consumer fraud lawsuit was filed against the company alleging BB failed to warn customers that its hair straightening product emit toxic formaldehyde gas, while the label states the product is “formaldehyde-free”.

Specifically, the lawsuit, entitled formaldehyde gas, GIB LLC Cases, JCCP No. 4657 and in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, in a case entitled In Re Brazilian Blowout Litigation, Case No. CV 10-08452 JFW (MANx), alleged that Defendants’ hair smoothing – products known as Brazilian Blowout Solution and Brazilian Blowout Acai Professional Smoothing Solution (hereinafter referred to as “Brazilian Blowout Products”) contain formaldehyde and other harsh chemicals, which Defendants failed to disclose and affirmatively represented as “formaldehyde free,” “contain[s] no formaldehyde,” and “contain[s] no harsh chemicals,” and as being “100% salon safe.”

The Proposed Brazilian Blowout Settlement provides, among other things, for the creation of a Gross Settlement Fund in the amount of $4,225,000, and the distribution of payments from the Settlement Fund to Class members who submit Valid Claims for monetary settlement payments.

Eligible class members may be covered by the Proposed Settlement if (1) they are a person in the United States who purchased Brazilian Blowout Products directly from GIB, LLC or one of its authorized distributors on or before June 6, 2012 (“Stylist” Class member), or (2) they are a person in the United States who underwent a treatment using Brazilian Blowout Products on or before June 6, 2012 (“Consumer” Class member).

To download claim forms and for more information on the Brazilian Blowout class action settlement, visit http://www.brazilianblowoutsettlement.com/

Elite – a Model Defendant? Elite Model Management is being praised (?) for its speed in agreeing to a $450K out of court settlement of an unpaid intern class action lawsuit filed last February.

The Elite Model Management lawsuit was filed by plaintiff Dajia Davenport, who interned at the agency in the summer of 2010. It states that Elite “deliberately misclassifies its interns as exempt from wage requirements,” despite the fact that they work over 40 hours per week.

Filed in February, the lawsuit sought a minimum of $50 million in unpaid wages, overtime pay, liquidated damages, interest and attorneys’ fees for unpaid interns who worked for Elite between February, 2007, and the date of a final judgment.

The terms of the settlement will guarantee participating the over 100 interns who make up the “Class” a minimum payment of $700, and as much as $1,750. It is reportedly the largest of an unpaid intern class action lawsuit settlement so far.

A final settlement hearing is scheduled for May 1, 2014.

Ok Folks, That’s all for this week. See you at the bar.

Week Adjourned: 1.3.14 – Facebook, Hyundai Kia, Royal Health

Top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending January 3, 2014. Top class actions include Facebook, Hyundai, Kia and Royal Health.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Hashtag Privacy Please! Naughty, naughty! Facebook’s allegedly been peeping into your privates—messages that is…which, a potential class action lawsuit claims, is in violation of federal and state laws.

Filed by two Facebook users against Facebook the lawsuit alleges the social media platform scans messages between users labeled “private” for links and other information that can be sold to third parties including advertisers, marketers and data aggregators. The Facebook lawsuit is seeking class action status, with a potential 166 million Facebook users in the US eligible to join the class, if it is certified.

Plaintiffs Matthew Campbell from Arkansas and Michael Hurley from Oregon filed the lawsuit in a US district court in Northern California, alleging Facebook data mines “private” messages without disclosing it does so, or seeking users’ consent. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges Facebook’s intercepting and using links in “private” messages between users is in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and California privacy and unfair competition laws.

“Facebook’s desire to harness the myriad data points of its users has led to overreach and intrusion … as it mines its account holders’ private communications for monetary gain,” the lawsuit contends.

Great start to the New Year guys!

Top Settlements

Holy Hyundai! (ok, bad, I know) A preliminary $395 settlement has been reached in a consumer fraud class action pending against Hyundai Motor Corp. and Kia Motors alleging gas mileage rating were overstated by the automotive manufacturers. The settlement will affect some 600,000 of Hyundai’s 2011-13 models and about 300,000 of Kia‘s 2011-13 models in the US.

The back story? ….In November 2012, Hyundai and Kia Motors agreed to restate expected gas mileage for 1.1 million vehicles in North America, following an investigation by the Environmental Protection Agency. The automakers admitted they after overstated mileage claims on vehicle window stickers for 900,000 vehicles in the United States. The settlement impacts about 600,000 of Hyundai’s 2011-13 models and about 300,000 of Kia‘s 2011-13 models in the U.S. Hyundai’s settlement is valued at up to $210 million, while Kia’s is valued at $185 million.

The 2012 restatement reduced Hyundai-Kia’s fleetwide average fuel economy from 27 to 26 mpg for the 2012 model year. Individual ratings, depending on the car, will fall from 1 mpg to 6 mpg. Most vehicles saw combined city-highway efficiency drop by 1 mpg, the Detroit News reports. Exact figures will depend on how many customers elect to participate in the settlement’s one-time lump sum payment option or remain in the lifetime reimbursement program, the automakers said.

The Hyundai Kia settlement will resolve more than 50 lawsuits filed across the country to address the issue. Hyundai agreed to add the option of taking a lump sum payment. The proposed cash amount, which varies by vehicle model and ownership type, will result in an average payment of $353 to Hyundai owners and lessees. For example, an owner of a 2012 Elantra would receive a lump sum payment of $320 minus any previous reimbursement payments. For Kia owners, the proposed average cash lump-sum amount will be about $667.

A federal judge is expected to review the proposed settlement for preliminary approval in early 2014. If approved, settlement notices will be sent to individual class members. To get the full skinny on initial details of the settlement, you can visit hyundaimpginfo.com or www.kiampginfo.com.

Royal Health to Shell Out a Royal $1.94 Million …in unpaid overtime. Yup. A preliminary settlement has been reached in an unpaid overtime class action lawsuit pending against Royal Health Care of Long Island LLC. Employees who filed the class action alleged the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York state labor laws by not paying them overtime pay.

In their employment lawsuit, the 411 plaintiffs allege Royal Health misclassified their positions as Representative, which are exempt from the overtime provisions stipulated under the FLSA and NYLL, and thereby failed to pay Plaintiffs overtime when they worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Under the terms of the Royal Health settlement, the Royal Health will pay $1.94 million to plaintiffs who worked eight weeks or more, between May 2006 to May 2013. If approved, funds will be distributed proportionally among the Class Members based on number of weeks each worked at Royal Health Care. An incentive award of $10,000 each will also be given to the four original named plaintiffs.

A Fairness Hearing is scheduled for January 6, 2014. The Royal Health Care Unpaid Overtime Class Action Lawsuit is Chandrakalli Sukhnandan et al. v. Royal Health Care of Long Island LLC, Case No. 1:12-cv-04216, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Ok Folks, That’s all for this week. Happy New Year! Here’s to a peaceful and prosperous 2014 for all.

Week Adjourned: 12.20.13 – Snooki Diet, Major Bank Credit Card Fees x 2

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top class actions for the week include Snooki’s would-be diet wonder and major bank credit card fees.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Is Snooki snookered? And maybe those of us using Zantrex? Christmas is not a good time to get the news that your diet pills may be snake oil. But, really, it shouldn’t come as a surprise. Snooki, of “Jersey Shore” fame, is facing a federal consumer fraud class action lawsuit over allegations she promoted the diet pill Zantrex knowing that the pills don’t work. http://www.bigclassaction.com/lawsuit/snooki-zantrex-diet-pills-consumer-fraud-class.php

Basic Research LLC, Zoller Laboratories, three of their officers, and Nicole Polizzi aka Snooki are named as defendants by lead plaintiff Ashley Brady, who claims Zantrex combines caffeine with herbs that are “unsafe and ineffective for weight control or appetite suppression.” Brady further alleges that the three officers have been ordered to cease and desist selling fraudulent weight-loss products.

So re: the Snooki Zantrex lawsuit, here’s the skinny—(couldn’t resist that one) Brady alleges she bought a bottle of Zantrex-3 in 2010 after reading the label’s claims stating the drug would provide “546% More Weight Loss Than America’s #1 Selling Ephedra-Based Diet Pill,” and that it would make her lose weight “without diet and exercise.” (OK, what’s your first clue.)

According to the lawsuit, “Snooki represents … that Zantrex is safe and effective for weight loss and fat loss,” the lawsuit states. “These representations are false, misleading and deceptive because … Zantrex is neither effective nor safe for weight loss nor fat loss.” The complaint states that Snooki is the face of the Zantrex brand, promoting it on her websites, on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook, and in celebrity gossip magazines.

Basic Research bills itself as “one of the largest ‘nutraceutical’ companies in the United States, with annual sales revenues in excess of $50 million,” the lawsuit states. Further, all three officers have come under fire for similar fraudulent schemes in the past. Defendant Dennis W. Gay is a principal and director of both Basic Research and Zoller; the FTC enjoined him in a similar case weight-loss fraud in 2006, according to the lawsuit. Additionally, defendant Daniel B. Mowrey was also enjoined from this conduct by the FTC’s 2006 injunction, and defendant Mitchell K. Friedlander, with Basic Research received a cease-and-desist order from the US Postal Service in 1985, also involving allegedly fraudulent weight-loss products, and a second USPS order involving bogus breast enlargement products, according to the lawsuit.

What’s that expression—“it’s the company you keep.”

Ho Ho Ho Baby!

What is this? Instant Replay? Almost. Following on the heels of a huge settlement by Visa and Mastercard in an antitrust lawsuit brought by thousands of small businesses across the US, (see below), a consumer banking class action lawsuit has just been filed against four major banks alleging they conspired to fix “interchange fees,” attached to the use of those same banks’ credit cards.

Those additional fees have cost consumers billions, according to the allegations. But I’m getting ahead of myself…

Not to sound cynical, but the list of defendants shouldn’t’ come as a surprise. They are JPMorgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp., Capital One FSB and HSBC Bank USA NA. The allegations are that they conspired with credit card companies to arrange or ‘fix’ the swipe fees charged to customers when they use their credit cards. The credit care fee lawsuit contends this has cost cardholders (you and me)—are you ready for this—over $54 billion in illegal credit card and bank fees annually. That would fund a few retirement but not ours apparently. No surprise, the class action claims this “price fixing” is in violation of the Sherman Act and the California Business and Professions Code.

Filed by Melvin Salveson, Edward Lawrence, Dianna Lawrence and Wendy M. Adams, the potential class action seeks to represent a nationwide class of Visa and MasterCard holders.

The plaintiffs claim that they each purchased “thousands of dollars’ worth of goods and services and paid related Interchange Fees on Visa and MasterCard transactions at prices inflated by the Defendants’ price-fixing conspiracy over many years.” Further, because of these fees, the plaintiffs contend, they have purchased products at artificially inflated prices. According to the lawsuit, “This price-fixing conspiracy is ongoing and additional overcharge dollars are being extracted from Cardholders pursuant to the conspiracy every time they swipe their Visa and MasterCard payment cards.”

And—yes—there’s more—all this collusion has also resulted in a loss of competition from other cards, in that merchants were prevented, allegedly, from telling their customers that there were cheaper options when making a purchase

Entitled Salveson, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., et al., Case No. 13-cv-05816, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the lawsuit claims “In furtherance of the conspiracy, Defendants and their co-conspirators also agreed to and have collectively imposed restraints on competition, such as so-called ‘Exclusionary Rules,’ ‘No Discount Rules,’ ‘No Surcharge Rules,’ and ‘Honor All Cards Rules,’ as well as Anti-Steering and other restrictions imposed upon merchants to the detriment of Cardholders,” the lawsuit states. The effect of these rules is such that merchants are prevented or prohibited from informing customers about the true costs associated with different forms of payments and from offering consumers an option to use a credit card with lower fees.

Specifically, “Through their common control of both Visa and MasterCard, Defendants and their co-conspirators have stifled competition between Visa and MasterCard and have thwarted competition from smaller competitor networks such as American Express and Discover,” the class action lawsuit states. “This reduction in competition among general purpose payment card networks has resulted in higher Interchange Fees, hindered and delayed the development and implementation of improved network products and services, and has lessened consumer choice.”

So these allegations, if proved true, would go along way to explaining how Visa and Mastercard can afford to pony up $5.7 Billion to settle an antitrust class action…but not everyone is happy with this settlement…

Top Settlements

Visa & MasterCard Pay Up… A settlement has been approved in a credit card fees class action lawsuit, by a United States federal judge. The settlement is for an estimated $5.7B, between Visa Inc (NYSE:V) and MasterCard Inc . The lawsuit was brought by thousands of retailers who alleged the credit card companies fixed fees that are charged to merchants every time their customers made use of their debit or credit cards. Additionally, the lawsuit claimed that Visa and Mastercard prevented merchants from informing customers about other forms of payments that were considerably cheaper.

The judge’s approval came amidst objections from literally thousands of retailers who were complaining that this amount was inadequate. It is believed that this settlement is the largest in any United States antitrust class action.

The class action was initially brought against Visa, then Mastercard in 2005, with both companies accused of fee fixing. A fairness hearing was held in September. The original settlement amount was $7.2B but was reduced to $5.7B after thousands of merchants dropped out of the settlement deal. The updated Visa and MasterCard settlement provides for cash payments to merchants across the country and also permits then to start charging customers and additional fee whenever a Master or a Visa card is used.

The National Retail Federation’s general counsel, Mallory Duncan said in a statement that his organization which had opposed this deal was now reviewing the ruling that they are expecting to file an appeal.

Ok Folks, That’s all for this week. Happy Holidays, be safe, and we’ll see you at the bar in time for a toast to 2014!

Week Adjourned: 12.2.13 – Electrolux, Kenmore, Frigidaire, ING, FedEx

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top class actions include Electrolux washers, ING Annuities, FedEx overcharges.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Were you out Shopping for Appliances on Black Friday? If so, a federal class action lawsuit has been filed against Electrolux Home Products Inc, over allegations the company marketed and sold defective washing machines.

Filed by plaintiffs Gloria Waters and William Hall, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the lawsuit claims that Electrolux sold front-loading washing machines that are prone to accumulate mold.

The Electrolux lawsuit alleges the manufacturer sold the defective washing machines under brand names including Frigidaire and Kenmore, and that Electrolux knowingly concealed the fact that the washing machines were prone to accumulate mold and mildew which can permeate throughout the consumer’s home and ruin clothes.

The plaintiffs are accusing Electrolux of breaching implied warranties by selling products they allegedly knew were defective, and are seeking an undisclosed amount in damages.

Thinking of Annuities InvestING? If you’re a senior or know a senior—you may be interested to learn that an annuities class action lawsuit has been filed against ING. Filed by Ernest Abbit of California, the lawsuit alleges the financial services firm indexed financial instruments that failed to meet the advertised goals and that company officials failed to properly advise seniors of the risks associated with investing in the annuities.

According to the ING lawsuit, the stated goal of ING indexed annuities, is to provide seniors in various age groups with “protection of principal”, which means reducing the risks of investment while using various investments products aimed at “fueling the value of our annuity” “to build up your retirement savings.” Abbit claims ING failed to back up their claims. Sound familiar?

Abbit alleges in the class action, that he, and others similarly situated, have lost as much as 20 percent of their savings, “on the first day” of investment, due to the lack of information regarding what the product provided. His returns are allegedly a fraction of those an investor would have received by investing in the S&P 500 as a whole, the index his annuity was allegedly designed to mirror. Umm.

Specifically, the lawsuit, The ING Annuity Class Action Lawsuit, entitled Ernest O. Abbit, et al. v. ING USA Annuity and Life Insurance Company, Case No. 13-cv-2310, U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, claims that ING’s the financial instruments are “wolves-in-sheep’s clothing” and that their statements are “opaque.” The lawsuit claims that not only did the instruments fail to return as advertised, but that those investments contained “embedded derivatives” similar to those that led to the financial collapse in 2008. ING indexed annuities were structured, the lawsuit claims, so that the company would benefit from any derivatives income while at the same time putting it senior investors at risk for losses.

According to the class action, in 2005 the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), which is the financial services industry’s self-governing body operating as a private monitor, warned that the products Abbit and others were invested in were accompanied by sales material that “do not fully describe the features and risks of the products.” insurance companies allegedly changing their annuity obligations or not being able to meet those obligations are Aviva, Transamerica, The Principal Financial Group, MetLife, Prudential, Guggenheim and Genworth. Variable annuity holders who purchased their annuities in the past three years from those companies may be eligible to file a claim against those companies.

Top Settlements

FedEx to deliver $21.5 million in cash and billing practice changes, ending a consumer fraud class action lawsuit brought against it by business and government agencies.

Granted final approval this week, the FedEx settlement ends the lawsuit brought in 2011 by two law firms, which alleged the world’s largest cargo delivery company overcharged by as much as $3 per package for tens of thousands of packages. Ouch! That could add up.

The plaintiffs, made up of government and business customers, claimed FedEx charged residential rates to destinations including the US Citizenship and Immigration Office in Chicago, a Bank of America Corp. facility in Tampa, Florida, and the Safariland Group body armor company in Jacksonville, Florida.

FedEx has denied the allegations but has agreed to settle. No news there.

The settlement was preliminarily settled in July. FYI—the class period is from August 28, 2008, to July 13, 2011, and involves FedEx customers who used the carrier’s services and didn’t get a full refund for claimed overcharges on residential deliveries.

The case is Manjunath A. Gokare PC v. Federal Express Corp., 11-cv-02131, U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee (Memphis).

Ok Folks, That’s all for this week. Happy Shopping till you’re Dropping!

Week Adjourned: 11.15.13 – Kia Soul, Garnier Fructis, Miley Cyrus, Starbucks

The week’s top class action lawsuits including Kia Soul, L’Oreal Garnier Fructis, Miley Cyrus jewelry and Starbucks coffee.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

An Explosive Situation… Heads up to Kia Soul owners and anyone leasing the 2010-2013 models. Kia Motors is facing a defective automotive class action lawsuit alleging that some of its vehicles have fuel tank placements that place vehicle occupants at risk for fire in the event of collision. The specific models cited in the consumer fraud class action lawsuit are the 2010-2013 Kia Soul.

The Kia Soul class action lawsuit contends that there was a scenario in Texas, in which a Kia Soul exploded in a collision, and as a result of the defective gas tank design all three passengers in the rear compartment of the car burned to death.

Filed in California federal court, the lawsuit, entitled Constance Sims, et al. v. Kia Motors America Inc. et al., Case No. 13-01791, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleges that Kia Motors America Inc, falsely misrepresented some of its vehicles as being constructed with “world-class quality.”

The design of certain Kia vehicles has the gas tank located directly under the rear seat. Further, the lawsuit alleges there are no means of protecting or reinforcing the fuel tank with reinforcing straps or a whole-tank shield, which is a practice commonly used by other automakers.

Therefore, the lawsuit contends, Kia passengers are unknowingly put at risk in certain types of collisions. Plaintiffs allege that placing the fuel tanks under the rear seat “increases the risk that the gas tank will dislodge and ignite in a major collision.”

The Kia defective automotive lawsuit also alleges the fuel pump cover is placed directly under the rear seat cushion, in order to allow mechanics easier access in the event of problem: mechanics would not necessarily have to remove the entire gas tank. However, should the gas tank become dislodged, the covering is plastic, “increasing the likelihood of a ‘blow torch’ [sic] fire in the rear compartment,” the lawsuit states.

The plaintiffs are seeking to represent anyone who purchased, leased and/or currently own or lease a Kia vehicle model that has a gas tank that is not properly secured or is covered by a plastic fuel pump service cover. They are also seeking damages for violations of the state Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, false advertising, breach of implied warranty and fraudulent concealment.

Having a Bad Hair Day? Wait till you read this… L’Oréal is facing a defective product class action lawsuit over claims that it failed to warn customers that Garnier Fructis Sleek and Shine Anti-Frizz Serum has, as its main ingredients, cyclopentasiloxane and dimethiconol, which are flammable. According to the class action, the anti-frizz serum can catch fire at temperatures above 171 degrees and can cause substantial risk of burns to face, head and neck. One teenager has suffered significant burns to her face and scalp.

The Garnier Fructis lawsuit has received certification by strict Court Judge Christina A. Snyder of the Central District of California. The class action alleges that L’Oréal USA Inc, and L’Oréal USA Products Inc., failed to label the frizz-reducing product as combustible or flammable near flame, ignition or high-heat-producing styling appliances, and misrepresented the product as safe to use with such implements, according to court documents.

Filed by plaintiffs Jill Guido and Catherine Altamura of California; Natalie Lefebvre of Texas; and Lisa Pearly of New York, the lawsuit seeks to represent any person who purchased the Serum during the period from February 4, 2008, to the present. According to court documents, during the class period, L’Oréal sold some 9.9 million units of Garnier Fructis Sleek and Shine Anti-Frizz Serum in the US. So—heads up ladies… and gents.

Top Settlements

All that Glitters is not Gold…and now there’s a settlement as a result. That’s right folks. A settlement has been reached in the consumer fraud class action lawsuit alleging that Miley Cyrus-branded jewelry manufactured by BCBG Max Azria Group Inc., and sold through Wal-Mart stores, contained cadmium.

The lawsuit, entitled Canamore v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. CV-2010-534, claims that had the plaintiffs known the Miley Cyrus jewelry contained cadmium, they would not have purchased it.

The Miley Cyrus jewelry lawsuit was filed on July 2, 2010. Defendants have denied and continue to deny any and all allegations of wrongdoing and liability. The Court has not decided which side is right.

FYI—you are a Settlement Class Member if you purchased Miley Cyrus-branded jewelry from a Wal-Mart retail store after July 1, 2005. A Final Approval Hearing will be held on December 30, 2013. There’s a little light reading with this one, so to find out your options, download forms, etc., visit: http://www.canamoresettlement.com.

Were you Scooped by Starbucks? If so, you may be entitled to some dosh. A proposed settlement has been reached in a consumer fraud class action lawsuit pending against Starbucks. The global coffee company has agreed to reimburse consumers who purchased less than one pound of scooped (not pre-packaged) Starbucks coffee beans between December 9, 2007 and November 7, 2011. The beans may have been purchased from any company-owned Starbucks store in the United States, other than half-pound purchases during January to March 2008 of coffee that had half-pound prices posted on menu boards during that time.

Among the allegations in the Starbucks consumer fraud class action, is that Starbucks (“Starbucks” or “Starbucks Coffee Company” or “Defendant”) failed to disclose to certain Starbucks customers who bought Starbucks scooped coffee beans in amounts less than 1 pound that the price was greater per pound than the amount charged for purchases of 1 pound of Starbucks coffee beans, according to the Starbucks settlement website.

According to the terms of the proposed settlement, Starbucks would provide a common settlement fund of $1,733,025.71, inclusive of settled claims, administrative expenses, attorneys’ fees, and costs. Starbucks would credit the My Starbucks Rewards accounts of Class Members who are My Starbucks Rewards Members in an amount calculated by multiplying $0.45 (an estimate of the weighted average Upcharge of all transactions by Class Members in the Class Period) by the number of Covered Purchases on each My Starbucks Rewards Member’s account identified in Starbucks’ business records or $5.00, whichever is more.

For consumers who are Starbucks Class Members but who are not My Starbucks Rewards Members, claims forms can be accessed online at: https://scoopedcoffeesettlement.simpluris.com/pages/ClaimForm.aspx or by downloading a claim form from the settlement website at www.starbucks.com/scoopedcoffeesettlement that can be printed out and mailed to Simpluris, Inc. P.O. Box 26170, Santa Ana, CA 92799.

Again, if you think you’re affected by this settlement there’s a little light reading involved, which you can access at www.starbucks.com/scoopedcoffeesettlement.

Ok Folks, That’s all for this week. And have a good weekend.

Week Adjourned: 11.8.13 – Wacoal iPant, Lennox A/C, J&J Risperdal

The week’s top class action lawsuits! This week, highlights include Lennox air conditioners, Wacoal and Maidenform shapewear, and a blockbuster settlement for big-pharma drug Risperdal.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Fat-Busting Shapewear…Busted? All I can say is DAMN! A federal consumer fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against Wacoal America Inc. and Maidenform Brands, Inc. over allegedly deceptive marketing claims the Defendants made regarding the purported slimming benefits of the Novarel Slim Fabric used in “Novarel Slim iPant” and “Flexees” brand shapewear. Hope on a hanger it’s allegedly not! Damn, damn, damn!

The Novarel and Flexees class action lawsuit, which was filed in US District Court for the Eastern District of New York on November 5, 2013, seeks class action status for all persons who paid, in whole or in part, for shapewear constructed with Novarel Slim fabric and manufactured, marketed or sold by Wacoal or Maidenform for personal, family or household uses. (Case No. 2:13-cv-06122).

According to the class action lawsuit, the Defendants claim that Novarel Slim Fabric, manufactured by Nurel SA, contains ingredients that can be absorbed by the body and permanently change the wearer’s skin tone and body shape. These ingredients include embedded microcapsules containing caffeine to promote fat destruction, vitamin E to prevent the effects of aging, ceramides to restore and maintain the skin’s smoothness, and retinol and aloe vera to moisturize and increase the firmness of the skin. Specifically, Wacoal American and Maidenform promise that use of Novarel Slim iPant and Flexees products will result in fat destruction and reduce the appearance of cellulite (see video below…). According to the complaint, the companies charge up to 50 percent more for shapewear products that contain the Noveral fabric compared to the cost of comparable shapewear that does not purport to contain these ingredients.

The Novarel and Flexees class action lawsuit alleges that the claims used by Wacoal and Maidenform to market Novarel Slim iPant and Flexees shapewear are deceptive and misleading. Among other things, Plaintiffs point to research from the Mayo Clinic, which found that cellulite cannot be “cured” with topical applications.

Bottom line—(pardon the pun)—I still have to diet… Damn!!

The lawsuit claims violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, breach of express warranties and unjust enrichment. It seeks, among other things, restitution for the amount of money Class Members spent to purchase Novarel Slim iPant and Flexees garments.

What’s in your Air Conditioner? If it’s a Lennox Air Conditioning unit—you may not be surprised to learn there’s something defective in it. The company is facing a defective products class action lawsuit alleging its air conditioning units are susceptible to formicary corrosion as a result of the deficient materials used in the manufacture of its coils. The Lennox air conditioner lawsuit further alleges that Lennox has not informed its customers of the defect, even when it is called to replace failed coils in existing units. This conduct, the lawsuit claims, means that customers are unable to make informed decisions regarding the purchase of a Lennox Air Conditioner.

Formicary corrosion—in case you were wondering—is a particularly insidious defect in an evaporator coil because the resultant leakage is difficult to detect, and usually results in consumers being forced to repeatedly refill their air conditioners with Freon, often at significant cost, which only works to mask the defect for a period of time, until the leak is detected and the coil needs to be replaced.

Lennox Coils are allegedly defective because they are manufactured with materials that, within the industry, are well known to be prone to formicary corrosion, which makes the Lennox Coils unreasonably susceptible to premature rupture and refrigerant leaks under normal use and conditions.

The federal class action, filed by Plaintiff Robert Thomas, of Illinois, is brought on behalf of the following nationwide consumer classes (the “Classes”):

All persons residing in the United States who purchased a Lennox AC containing a Lennox Coil, primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.

All persons residing in the United States who purchased a Lennox AC containing a Lennox Coil, primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, and who paid to replace a Lennox AC evaporator coil. The lawsuit also seeks to represent a subclass defined as all members of the Classes who reside in Illinois.

Top Settlements

It’s a Blockbuster Drug! (of sorts…) Fitting though, considering the players. Global health care giant Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and its subsidiaries will pay more than $2.2 billion in a Qui Tam (whistleblower) investigation. The settlement will resolve criminal and civil liability arising from allegations relating to the prescription drugs Risperdal, Invega and Natrecor, including promotion for uses not approved as safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and payment of kickbacks to physicians and to the nation’s largest long-term care pharmacy provider. Got all that?

Officially—the Risperdal settlement whose “…global resolution is one of the largest health care fraud settlements in U.S. history, including criminal fines and forfeiture totaling $485 million and civil settlements with the federal government and states totaling $1.72 billion.” (source: US Dept of Justice).

The resolution includes criminal fines and forfeiture for violations of the law and civil settlements based on the False Claims Act arising out of multiple investigations of the company and its subsidiaries.

Here’s the skinny from the DOJ:

J&J Subsidiary Janssen Pleads Guilty to Misbranding Antipsychotic Drug.

In a criminal information filed today in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the government charged that, from March 3, 2002, through December 31, 2003, Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., a J&J subsidiary, introduced the antipsychotic drug Risperdal into interstate commerce for an unapproved use, rendering the product misbranded. For most of this time period, Risperdal was approved only to treat schizophrenia. The information alleges that Janssen’s sales representatives promoted Risperdal to physicians and other prescribers who treated elderly dementia patients by urging the prescribers to use Risperdal to treat symptoms such as anxiety, agitation, depression, hostility and confusion.

The information alleges that the company created written sales aids for use by Janssen’s ElderCare sales force that emphasized symptoms and minimized any mention of the FDA-approved use, treatment of schizophrenia. The company also provided incentives for off-label promotion and intended use by basing sales representatives’ bonuses on total sales of Risperdal in their sales areas, not just sales for FDA-approved uses.

In a plea agreement resolving these charges, Janssen admitted that it promoted Risperdal to health care providers for treatment of psychotic symptoms and associated behavioral disturbances exhibited by elderly, non-schizophrenic dementia patients. Under the terms of the plea agreement, Janssen will pay a total of $400 million, including a criminal fine of $334 million and forfeiture of $66 million. Janssen’s guilty plea will not be final until accepted by the U.S. District Court.

So, enquiring minds want to know how many people were prescribed this drug when they didn’t actually need it…

Ok Folks, That’s all for this week. In advance of Monday—Here’s to our Veterans – THANK YOU. And have a good weekend!