Consumer Fraud

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

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

Top Class Actions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Class Actions

Bit of a theme here this week—consumer fraud.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Class Actions

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

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

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

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

Top Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Class Actions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Settlements

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

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

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

Week Adjourned: 2.24.12

The weekly wrap of top class action lawsuits and lawsuit settlements for the week ending February 24, 2012.

Top Class Actions

Hotels.com—too good to be true? Kaylen Silverberg thinks so. She filed a consumer fraud class action lawsuit this week against the online booking agency, alleging it does not back up its promise to refund money if hotel guests can find a better rate elsewhere online.

Instead, Silverberg’s lawsuit claims, Hotels.com sets an “arbitrary and undisclosed limit” on refunds.

Silverberg’s lawsuit states Hotels.com will not back up its promise: “‘after you book with Hotels.com, if you find a lower publicly available rate on line for the same dates, hotel, and room category, we will match the price and refund you the difference.'” Instead, the lawsuit states, “Hotels.com has an arbitrary and undisclosed policy to refund only a portion of the difference between its rate and other, lower rates. For example, in Silverberg’s case, Hotels.com stated that ‘we can only refund you $142,’ even though the price difference was substantially greater.”

Silverberg’s story, short version, is allegedly that she booked a room through Hotels.com for two nights in Rancho Palos Verdes, CA., for $355 per night, then found a $223 rate at HotelClub.com. A third website advertised an even lower rate, $213. Silverberg then asked Hotels.com to back up its guarantee but she was told by the company that they would refund her only $71 a night, which she calls “an arbitrary and undisclosed limit.”

The lawsuit seeks restitution and class damages for breach of contract and unjust enrichment—otherwise known as “business as usual.”

Top Settlements

Every so often a class action settlement comes along that results directly from very unfortunate circumstances. This is one such settlement. This week, Teva Pharmaceuticals, the maker of Propofol, announced it will settle 120 personal injury lawsuits arising from a hepatitis C outbreak in Southern Nevada. The amount of the Nevada Propofol settlement is a reported $285 million.

The Israeli-based generic drug maker was facing lawsuits brought by some 150 former patients of The Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada and its sister clinics, who contracted the disease after receiving propofol at the clinics. LAS reported on this in some detail at the time.

According to a report in the Las Vegas Review Journal, nine hepatitis C cases were found to be linked to the clinics which were run by Dr. Dipak Desai. Seven of the nine cases were genetically linked to the center. Health officials called another 106 cases “possibly linked.” According to health officials, more than 60,000 former clinic patients were potentially exposed to hepatitis C because of unsafe injection practices by nurse anesthetists at the clinics.

Teva lost the first three trials and was facing payments of nearly $800 million dollars in compensatory and punitive damages. The fourth trial was under way when settlement talks began in earnest. The settlement leaves 15 lawsuits unresolved.

Antennagate may be drawing to a close…if a preliminary settlement reached in a defective products class-action lawsuit against Apple is approved. The lawsuit alleges underperformance of its iPhone 4 resulting from antenna problems. And oh brother did we ever hear about it! While the iPhone 4 settlement per class member is certainly not large, by anyone’s measure—the size of the class certainly is—25 million US residents no less, each of whom could receive $15 in cash or a bumper case provided by Apple under the terms of the settlement. So, don’t be quitting your day job just yet.

The class action combined 18 separate lawsuits, all of which allege Apple was “misrepresenting and concealing material information in the marketing, advertising, sale, and servicing of its iPhone 4—particularly as it relates to the quality of the mobile phone antenna and reception and related software.”

As part of the iPhone 4 settlement original purchasers will be sent emails before April 30, 2012 alerting them to the settlement. The claims period is then open for 120 days.

OK—And it’s off to the bar we go. See you there!

Week Adjourned: 2.10.12

A weekly wrap up of the latest class action lawsuits and lawsuit settlements, for the week ending February 10, 2012

Top Class Actions

If you didn’t need Zantac before, you may need after reading this… Walgreens is facing a consumer fraud class action lawsuit over allegations the drugstore chain, in partnership with Par, a manufacturer of generic pharmaceuticals, marketed generic versions of antacid Zantac and antidepressant Prozac in dosage forms that weren’t subject to private and governmental reimbursement limitations. “As a result of this unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and other third-party payors paid two to four times more than they would have had the prescriptions been filled as written,” the lawsuit claims.

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) who filed the lawsuit, alleges in the Walgreens class action lawsuit that Walgreens and Par “engaged in at least two widespread schemes to overcharge insurance companies, self-insured employers and union health and welfare funds for the generic versions of Zantac, Prozac and other drugs.”

According to the lawsuit, “Walgreens purchased these dosage forms from Par—at a cost substantially higher than the widely prescribed dosage forms—and systematically and unlawfully filled its customers’ prescriptions with Par’s more expensive products, rather than the inexpensive dosage forms that were prescribed by physicians.”

Pharmacies cannot legally change a prescription without a physician’s express authorization; however, this class action lawsuit alleges Walgreens used expensive capsules manufactured by Par to fill prescriptions for the lower-priced tablets.

Top Settlements

For DES Daughters, Settled but not over… In a precedent-setting ruling, U.S. Magistrate Judge Marianne Bowler has this week ordered 14 pharmaceutical companies to negotiate compensation for 53 women who brought a DES class action lawsuit against the drug companies. The women alleged their breast cancer was caused by their mothers’ use of an anti-miscarriage drug, taken decades ago, called Diethylstilbestrol, also called Stilboestrol or DES.

DES was a synthetic hormone given to six million women worldwide between the 1940s and the early 1970s to prevent miscarriage. The drug was taken off the market when studies showed serious Diethylstilbestrol side effects, including a link between DES and vaginal cancer–as well as a link between DES and breast cancer, in women exposed to the medication while in the womb.

Bowler’s decision, which will have far reaching consequences, came following expert testimony from the scientific community including the Chair of Harvard’s Department of Epidemiology. The testimony included facts supporting the women’s claims that prenatal exposure to DES substantially increased risk for breast cancer among “DES Daughters” over the age of 40. The data came from information collected by the National Cancer Institute DES Follow-Up Study, and shows that DES daughters over the age of 40 are roughly twice as likely to develop breast cancer as their counterparts who were not exposed to the drug in-utero.

Manufacturers of DES include Eli Lilly and Company and E. R. Squibbs & Sons, the predecessor to Bristol-Myers Squibb. According to data from the Centers for Disease Control an estimated 10 million women in the United States have been exposed to DES—including DES mothers, DES daughters, DES sons and DES grandchildren. Attorney’s representing the plaintiffs expect there may be many more women affected by DES who will come forward as a result of this ruling.

Now it’s time for JP Morgan Chase to write a check…as they have tentatively agreed to pay $110 million to settle an overdraft fees class-action lawsuit filed by customers who allege the bank charged excessive checking overdraft fees.

The lawsuit, filed in 2009 by Andrea Luquetta of Los Angeles, claimed JPMorgan engaged in “unfair, deceptive and unconscionable” assessment and collection of overdraft fees. Her complaint also refers to the practices of Washington Mutual, which JPMorgan bought in 2008.

Specifically, the lawsuit claimed that JP Morgan Chase processed its debit card transactions unfairly so it could maximize the overdraft fees customers paid, which, according to the lawsuit, was typically between $25 and $35 per overdraft. The lawsuit remains to be approved in court, and details of the settlement terms haven’t been made readily available yet, so watch this space for updates.

OK—they’re buying—that’s a wrap for this week. See you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 1.13.12

A wrap up of the week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements, for the week ending January 13, 2012.

Top Class Actions

Diagnosis: Discrimination? Following in the footsteps of the Novartis and Merck suits, one has to wonder if discrimination is standard practice in this industry…

A $100 million gender discrimination employment class action lawsuit has been filed against Quest Diagnostics Inc., and AmeriPath, Inc., (collectively known as “Quest”) in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The complaint details the systemic discriminatory treatment of female sales representatives company-wide by the self-proclaimed “world leader in diagnostic testing, information and services.”

Indiana resident Erin Beery and Florida resident Heather Traeger, both of them current Quest employees in the AmeriPath division, filed the lawsuit on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly-situated sales reps employed from February 17, 2010 to the present. Beery is an Executive Territory Manager in Quest’s Anatomical Pathology Sales Division in Indianapolis; Traeger is Senior Executive Territory Manager in the Anatomical Pathology Sales Division in Bradenton.

The complaint details a wide range of discriminatory practices in the selection, promotion and advancement of sales reps at Quest Diagnostics and AmeriPath, including discrimination on the basis of pregnancy and caretaking responsibilities in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other federal statutes.

In addition, both of the named plaintiffs in the case have individual claims of disparate pay, differential treatment, gender hostility, the creation of a hostile work environment and retaliation in the workplace affecting them in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other federal statutes.

According to Beery and Traeger, high ranking company officials within Quest’s predominately-male management team foster an environment detrimental to the success and advancement of female employees. They describe “old boys’ club” attitudes that pervade the enterprise, including forcing women to work under less favorable circumstances than their male counterparts and denying them the educational and job advancement opportunities afforded men in similar positions.

The complaint asserts that Quest’s policies do not provide sufficient oversight or safety measures to protect women from intentional and overt discrimination of even facially-neutral policies, so that female employees discriminated against have no recourse within the company. It cites an absence of internal incentives or disciplinary measures to ensure company executives and managers comply with company discrimination policies and equal employment laws.

The lawsuit also asserts that a significant number of the women who work for Quest have been and are affected by the same discriminatory employment policies, practices and procedures to which Beery and Traeger were subjected, justifying the certification of the class.

Scanning Scam? And now for our weekly consumer fraud lawsuit. This one was filed against Symantec Corp alleging the software manufacturer attempts to convince consumers to buy its products by providing misleading information about the functionality of their computers.

Filed by James Gross, of Washington state, the lawsuit claims that Symantec distributes trial versions of its products that scan a consumer’s system, then report that harmful errors, privacy risks and other problems exists on the PC, regardless of the actual operating status of the computer.

The lawsuit also claims that Symantec uses that scanning software to market Norton Utilities, PC Tools Registry Mechanic and PC Tools Performance Toolkit software. Norton Utilities and PC Tools are products that Symantec claims help improve the performance of personal computers and keep online activities private. The lawsuit claims that Norton Utilities and PC Tools are forms of “scareware,” a common type of malicious software that causes pop-up messages to appear on computers telling users that they are infected with a virus.

“The truth, however, is that the scareware does not actually perform any meaningful evaluation of the user’s computer system, or of the supposed ‘errors’ detected by the software,” the complaint claims. What scareware does do, in my experience, is suck up your time and send your stress levels through the roof—like you’ve got nothing better to do!

“The scareware does not, and cannot, actually perform the valuable tasks represented by Symantec through its websites, advertising, and in-software display screens.” No comment.

Lawyers representing the plaintiffs state that the software is falsely informing the consumer that errors are high priority and in addition it is falsely informing the consumer that their overall system health and privacy health is low. Symantec makes Norton 360, Norton Internet Security and Norton AntiVirus software.

Top Settlement

Nationwide Insurance Settlement. Well, it’s a start. This week, a federal court preliminarily approved a settlement with Nationwide Insurance that resolves allegations brought in a federal class action lawsuit, that the insurer improperly reduced or denied insurance benefits to residents in Delaware. Nice.

What’s the beef? The lawsuit claims that Nationwide improperly reduced or denied insurance benefits for medical services after submitting medical bills to a computer-based bill review audit. Specifically, the lawsuit challenges reductions in payment for those services based upon a reasonableness or usual and customary charge bill review administered by Mitchell Medical. Among other things, the lawsuit challenges Nationwide’s right to conduct such bill review under the applicable policies, the disclosure that such bill review would be conducted, and the manner in which the bill review was conducted. Nationwide denies any wrongdoing, and contends that review of medical bill pricing protects against excessive charges and helps to preserve insurance benefits.

Here’s the skinny on qualifying: “You are a member of the “Settlement Class” and a “Settlement Class Member” covered by the settlement if you fall within the following class definition adopted by the Court:

All persons, and their medical providers or other assignees, who (a) submitted first-party medical expense claims to Nationwide pursuant to Nationwide’s Delaware automobile insurance policy No-Fault coverage; (b) had their claim submitted by Nationwide to computer pricing review during the period from September 1, 2004 through December 31, 2007; (c) received or were tendered payment but in an amount less than the submitted medical charges based upon the pricing review of the charges; and (d) received or were tendered an amount less than the stated policy limits.”

You can find out more about the Nationwide insurance settlement here.

Ok – That’s a wrap for this week. See you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 12.30.11

A weekly wrap up of class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending December 30, 2011.

Top Class Actions

Neiman-Marcus Class Action Filed Over $1.50. That’s one dollar fifty cents, folks. This is interesting–and I have to admit I’d never thought about ATM fees in department stores. But this woman has–Marilyn Frey, from Sherman, Texas. She has filed a consumer fraud class action against Neiman-Marcus claiming unfair business practices over its charging $1.50 ATM fees at ATM terminals in their stores, without posting the fees. Umm. Ok.

The lawsuit, brought individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, claims that Frey made a withdrawal at an ATM on October 11, 2011, which is operated by Neiman-Marcus in their store, and was charged a “terminal fee” of $1.50 in connection with the transaction. The lawsuit claims that the fee is in violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, which requires a notice posted on or at the ATM regarding the fee that would be charged for use. Well, this could certainly open up a can of worms…all this for $1.50.

Top Settlements

A couple of biggies this week…

AIG Low-balling Workers’ Comp Claims. First up—American International Group Inc (AIG)—they received final approval from a federal judge to pay $450 million as settlement of the AIG class-action lawsuit brought by a group of other insurers alleging underreporting of workers compensation premiums.

The settlement is supported by AIG and Ace Ina Holdings Inc., Auto-Owners Insurance Co., Companion Property & Casualty Insurance Co., Firstcomp Insurance Co., Hartford Financial Services Group Inc., Technology Insurance Co. and Travelers Indemnity Co. Liberty Mutual Group’s two subsidiaries, Ohio Casualty and Safeco, had opposed the settlement. In August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied Liberty Mutual’s request to appeal the proposed $450 million settlement while the case is still ongoing. Liberty Mutual could still file an appeal down the road, and can still drop out of the settlement class to pursue a case against AIG on its own.

The lawsuit stems from allegations that AIG intentionally underestimated its workers’ comp premiums to avoid premium taxes and substantial residual market charges before 1996. In some states, from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s, the residual market losses were greater than the residual market and voluntary market premium combined, so the more voluntary premium a company wrote, the more it had to pay out to cover its share of the residual market losses. That, allegedly, gave companies an incentive to under-report workers’ comp claims. Got it? Hey—fraud is fraud…

Look Sharp? Next up…A $538.6 million settlement has been agreed between Sharp Corp., Samsung Electronics Co. (005930) and five other makers of liquid crystal display panels which, if approved, would end claims that the companies fixed prices on the panels used in computers and televisions. The attorney generals of eight states, including California, Florida and New York are part of the settlement agreements with the manufacturers.

In a nutshell—the antitrust lawsuit alleged that the companies fixed prices of thin-film liquid crystal display panels, between 1999 and 2006, which effectively increased the prices for purchasers of devices such as televisions, notebook computers and monitors.

How is a consumer supposed to know this stuff? Oh right, we’re not. All things considered maybe the term “trust” should be stricken from terminology relating to the free market… just a thought…

Apparently, this settlement will see about $501 million made available for partial refunds to consumers and about $37 million made available for compensation to governments and other public entities for damages.

Ok—That’s a wrap for this year. Happy New Year and all that jazz. See you in 2012!

Week Adjourned: 12.23.11

A weekly wrap of the latest class action lawsuits and settlements, December 23, 2011

Top Class Actions

Another Corny Lawsuit? Ummm—you decide. A consumer fraud lawsuit was filed this week—testing the boundaries of food labeling vis-a-vis PepsiCo’s snacks business, Frito-Lay. The issue? Frito-lay is misleading consumers by making claims that its products, which contain genetically modified corn and vegetable oils, are all-natural, according to the lawsuit. (All natural corn=all natural chips? Really?)

Specifically, the lawsuit claims that by labeling some of its Tostitos and SunChips products as “made with all-natural ingredients” Frito-Lay is misleading consumers because genetically modified corn and vegetable oils are also present in the product. “The reasonable consumer assumes that seeds created by swapping genetic material across species to exhibit traits not naturally theirs are not ‘all natural’,” the claim states.

The claimant is pursuing the case on the basis of a violation of California and federal laws relating to unfair and fraudulent claims. I’m still struggling with the thought of any of this type of “food” being ok on any level—never mind whether or not it’s genetically modified. Bah humbug!

Top Settlements

Diamonds are Forever. So’s the De Beers Price Fixing Settlement now. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has issued an opinion today upholding the settlement in the antitrust class action litigation against the South African company De Beers, the world’s largest diamond supplier, for allegedly conspiring to monopolize the sale of rough diamonds.

The appellate court affirmed an order by U.S. District Judge Stanley R. Chesler of the District of New Jersey that approved a settlement under which De Beers agreed to pay $295 million to U.S. jewelry makers, retailers, and consumers who purchased diamonds and diamond jewelry beginning in 1994.

The settlement also prevents De Beers from continuing its illegal business practices and requires De Beers to submit to the jurisdiction of the Court to enforce the settlement. Ouch! That’s a wee bit more than a wrist slap —but hey—that tennis bracelet sure looks good…

Talk about Soaring Gas Prices… More price fixing—this time in the stock market (now there’s a surprise)—and this time the guilty party is Amaranth Advisors LLC. They got hit with a $77.1 million settlement in a securities lawsuit brought by traders who allege the hedge fund manipulated the natural gas market. Whoa Nelly!

According to Businessweek, Amaranth collapsed in 2006 after losing $6.6 billion on natural gas trades. In August 2009, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission announced that Amaranth paid $7.5 million to settle market manipulation allegations however, in their lawsuit, the traders presented an expert who estimated damages at $3.5 billion.

Then, in April of this year, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued a $30 million civil penalty against Brian Hunter, an Amaranth trader accused of manipulating the natural gas market in 2006.

FYI—the settlement isn’t final yet—a hearing on final approval of the class-action, or group, accord is reportedly scheduled for March 27 and, if approved, could pave the way for investor reimbursement.

Ok—That’s a wrap for this week. Merry Christmas—Happy Hanukkah—and Season’s Greetings—have a wonderful holiday everyone…

Week Adjourned: 10.15.11

Top Class Actions

Well, Hello…Something fruity is going on here—or not as the case may be… A proposed consumer fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against General Mills alleging the company misled consumers about the nutritional and health qualities of its fruit snacks, specifically Fruit Roll Ups, Fruit by the Foot, Fruit Gushers, as well as other similar products.

The lawsuit claims that between October 15, 2005 to the present (the “class period”) General Mills engaged in a widespread marketing campaign to mislead consumers about the nutritional and health qualities of its Fruit Snacks. Specifically, the suit states, “Defendant made misleading statements that its Products were nutritious, healthful to consume, and better than similar fruit snacks.”

The suit further states “In fact, Defendant’s Fruit Snacks contained trans fat, added sugars, and artificial food dyes; lacked significant amounts of real, natural fruit; and had no dietary fiber. Thus, although the Products were marketed as being healthful and nutritious for children and adults alike, selling these Fruit Snacks was little better than giving candy to children.” Umm…Maybe suitable for Halloween treats?

Top Settlements

Did your internal capacitor prematurely fail? No—I mean the one in your TV! On October 3, 2011, preliminary approval was granted to a proposed defective product class action settlement with Philips Electronics North America Corporation (“Philips”).

The settlement proposes to resolve lawsuits that allege certain Philips and Magnavox televisions suffer from a defect that causes internal components (called capacitors) to prematurely fail, resulting in the televisions becoming inoperable. The proposed settlement would entitle qualifying settlement class members, who purchased new or received as a gift new one of the Philips or Magnavox plasma televisions with the model numbers listed below, to monetary benefits or vouchers.

The model numbers of the Philips and Magnavox plasma televisions included in the proposed class action settlement are:

50PF9830A/37 42PF9630A/37

50PF9731D/37 42PF7321D/37

50PF9631D/37 42PF7320A/37

50PF9630A/37 42PF7220A/37

50PF9431D/37 42PF5321D/37

50PF7321D/37 50MF231D/37

50PF7320A/37 50PF7220A/37

In addition, only those television sets with a serial number reflecting a manufacturing date between November 1, 2005 through December 31, 2006 qualify for participation in this settlement.

The Court has scheduled a hearing in December to determine whether to grant final approval to the settlement.

To be eligible to receive the benefits made available pursuant to this settlement, class members must submit to the claims administrator a claim form that is postmarked by February 28, 2012.

To obtain additional information about the settlement, to determine whether your television qualifies, or to obtain a claim form, you can visit the settlement website at PhilipsPlasmaTVsettlement.com. You can also contact the settlement administrator by calling (855) 477-4407, or by writing to Philips Plasma TV Settlement, c/o Dahl, Inc., P.O. Box 2061, Faribault, MN 55021.

Service gratuity not quite included? This one’s for anyone who ever worked in the service industry and had their tips withheld—and I’m sure there’s no shortage of you out there… A $7 million settlement has been reached by current and past employees of the Cranwell Resort, Spa, & Golf Club in Lenox, ending an employee class-action lawsuit that alleged the resort’s management illegally withheld the workers tips.

If the settlement receives final court approval, approximately 700 food, beverage, and spa employees who worked at the upmarket Berkshire resort between 2001 and 2011 will share in the money. A final settlement hearing is scheduled for November 2011. This is the second of two lawsuits, filed over four years ago, claimed that the employees were not paid the full service charges that were added to hotel bills, which is against state law.

Ok—That’s it for this week. See you at the bar—where I will be repairing my personal, internal capacitor.