false advertising

Week Adjourned: 8.24.12 – Hotel Deals, Parkay, ACS

The weekly wrap of top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending August 24, 2012. Top stories include online hotel reservations, Parkay margarine and ACS overtime.

Top Class Actions

And you thought you were getting a hotel deal? Consumers (that would be you and me) have filed an antitrust class action lawsuit against several online travel sites including Expedia, Inc, Travelocity, Booking.com, a subsidiary of Priceline.com, and the nation’s largest hotel operators including Hilton Hotel, Sheraton Hotels and Resorts, a subsidiary of Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide, and Marriott International, Inc, claiming the two groups conspired to use their market dominance to fix prices on hotel rooms across the country.

The hotel price fixing class action lawsuit, filed on behalf of hotel room purchasers nationally, alleges that the online hotel retailers conspired with major hotel defendants to secretly create and enforce Resale Price Maintenance (RPM) agreements to thwart competition on hotel room prices, especially from price-cutting online retailers.

The complaint contends that the defendants’ unlawful conduct caused plaintiffs and other class members to overpay for their purchases of room reservations and seeks to represent all consumers who have purchased hotel rooms from the online retailer defendants.

According to the complaint, online travel sites account for as much as 50 percent of hotel bookings in the United States and traditionally operate under one of two models. Under the agency model, online retailers charge a service fee to a hotel operator on a transaction basis for booking customers, and that customer pays the hotel directly at a rate set by the hotel.

Under the merchant model, online retailers purchase rooms outright at a negotiated rate from the hotel, and then resell the rooms to consumers at a higher price, increasing or decreasing margins depending on competitive influences.

More recently, a new model has emerged that has cut into the traditional online retailers’ profits, the complaint contends, and has led to the creation of the RPM agreements. In this model, known as the Wholesale Model, third-party companies buy up unsold blocks of rooms at the last-minute and resell them to smaller price-cutting online retailers, eroding the profits of the traditional online retailers.

Knowing hotels cannot afford to lose access to online distribution networks, online retailers allegedly devised an illegal scheme, extracting agreements from the hotels that online retailers may not sell rooms below the RPM rates—even through the wholesale model—on penalty of termination and as a condition of doing business through the online retailers, the lawsuit contends.

The complaint states that the online retailer defendants often use terms like “best price guarantee” to create the impression of a competitive market, but in truth these are nothing more than a cover for the price-fixing conspiracy. The suit alleges that the defendants’ activities violate both the federal antitrust laws, as well as California’s Cartwright Act.

What’s the fat content in Parkay Spray Butter advertising? Higher than indicated, apparently…ConAgra Foods got hit with a consumer fraud class action lawsuit over allegations they intentionally misrepresenting the contents of Parkay Spray butter substitute.

Nebraska resident Pamela Trewhitt filed the Parkay lawsuit claiming that ConAgra falsely marketed the butter substitute as “fat-free” and “calorie-free,” even though it contains 832 calories and 93 grams of fat per 8-oz bottle. The lawsuit also claims that the nutrition information on the label underestimates the amount of fat and calories in the products by using artificially small serving sizes of one to five sprays.

“Defendant knew or should have known that its product was mislabeled and engendered confusion among consumers,” the lawsuit states. It cites numerous Internet complaints about the spray by consumers who couldn’t figure out why they weren’t losing weight until they discovered that Parkay Spray was the culprit. “I was literally taking the top of the ‘fat and calorie free butter’ spray and pouring it on my carefully steamed veggies when I found out that a bottle of that stuff is 90 fat grams. I was going through two bottles a week, and working out and getting fat and unhealthy,” one plaintiff alleges.

The Parkay lawsuit accuses ConAgra Foods of violating the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, reaping ill-gotten profits, and fraud. Plaintiffs are seeking more than $5 million in damages as well as an injunction barring ConAgra from labeling Parkay Spray as fat-free and calorie-free.

Top Settlements

Now here’s a happy ending…Workers employed at an Oregon call center by Affiliated Computer Services Inc, have won a $4.5 million settlement in a wage and hour class action lawsuit. The lawsuit alleged the employees were not properly paid all minimum and overtime wages for all the hours they worked.

Filed in 2009, the lawsuit, entitled Bell, et al. v. Affiliated Computer Services, claims that ACS violated federal and state wage and overtime laws by failing to pay employees for all hours worked, all overtime hours and failing to timely pay final wages to employees at the end of employment.

Eligible class members of the ACS settlement include all employees of ACS who worked as a phone agent or representative in an Oregon call center for the “Retail, Travel, and Insurance,” “BPS,” or “Telecommunication and technology” business groups from April 2, 2005 through April 25, 2012.

The settlement has three classes, under which members may make a claim. They are:

Subclass A: Class Members who were employed by ACS in Oregon as of April 25, 2012 will receive a Settlement Award in the maximum amount of $125, not to exceed 2,000 individuals.

Subclass B: Class Members who were employed by ACS in Oregon and whose employment ended at any time between November 6, 2006 and April 24, 2012 will receive a Settlement Award in the maximum amount of $260, not to exceed 13,000 individuals.

Subclass C: Class Members who were employed by ACS and whose employment ended at any time between April 2, 2005 and November 5, 2006 will receive a Settlement Award in the maximum amount of $50, not to exceed 5,000 individuals.

In order to receive a Settlement Award from the ACS settlement class members must submit a valid Claim Form to the Settlement Administrator postmarked or faxed on or before September 1, 2012. Claim Forms have been mailed to Class Members.

A Final Approval Hearing for the Affiliated Computer Services Class Action Lawsuit Settlement will be held October 22, 2012.

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

Week Adjourned: 7.7.12 – Simply Orange, US Bank, Rite Aid

The weekly wrap of top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week of July 7, 2012. Top stories this week include class action lawsuits involving Simply Orange, US Bank, Rite Aid

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Putting the Squeeze on Coca-Cola. Well, maybe. Seems something’s going on down at the grove. First it was Tropicana, now Coke’s Simply Orange has been hit with a federal consumer fraud class action lawsuit this week over allegations it falsely advertises the Simply Orange orange juice as all pure and natural, when the juice is actually heavily processed and flavored.

Filed by Nezzie Rose Christina, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Simply Orange class action lawsuit claims that Coca-Cola has been falsely stating that the Simply Orange orange juice is “100% Purse Squeezed Orange Juice” and is “a pure, natural orange juice with a taste that’s the next best thing to fresh-squeezed.”

Well, you don’t have to be a chemist to squeeze an orange at home, compare the juice you get from that with what comes out of your grocer’s freezer, and see a difference—now do you?

So the Simply Orange class action lawsuit claims that Coca-Cola is deceptively promoting Simply Orange in order to take advantage of consumers’ preference for natural products and their willingness to pay a premium price for those products. “Mass marketed orange juice such as Simply Orange cannot be fresh squeezed as fresh squeezed orange juice is unstable and has a short shelf-life,” the lawsuit states.

The class action lawsuit alleges unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty, fraudulent concealment, and violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, and is asking for the return of the purchase price of the juice, plus interest, expenses, and attorney’s fees. This could be a juicy one! (Ok, ok—that’s bad, I know).

Top Settlements

Something to Bank on. One by one—it seems the banks are falling in line. Finally and at last. This week—it was US Bank—who agreed to pay $55 million to settle class action lawsuits that accused the bank of improperly manipulating its customers’ debit card transactions in order to generate excess overdraft fee revenues. The lawsuits, part of multi-district litigation involving more than 30 different banks entitled In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, are pending before U.S. District Judge James Lawrence King in Miami.

The US Bank class action lawsuits claim that the bank’s internal computer system re-sequenced the actual order of its customers’ debit card and ATM transactions, by posting them in highest-to-lowest dollar amount rather than in the actual order in which they were initiated by customers and authorized by the bank. According to the lawsuits, U.S. Bank’s practice resulted in its customers being charged substantially more in overdraft fees than if the debit card and ATM transactions had been posted in the order in which they were initiated and authorized.

FYI—US Bank is not the first bank involved in this multi-district litigation to settle similar claims. In addition to a $410 million settlement with Bank of America approved last year, settlements with JPMorgan Chase Bank ($110 million), Citizens Bank ($137.5 million), TD Bank ($62 million) and PNC Bank ($90 million) have been announced in recent months.

Employee Rites? Here’s one for the little guy! An unpaid overtime class action lawsuit brought against Rite Aid Corp by its employees, looks likely to be settled, as the company has agreed to pay up to $20.9 million in a settlement of the federal class action.

The Rite Aid class action lawsuit was brought in December 2008, by a store manager from Georgia, who alleged violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act, specifically, that she was denied overtime payment.

The settlement combines 13 cases from various federal court districts in which Rite Aid assistant store managers and co-managers alleged they put in more than 40 hours of work some weeks, but were denied overtime because the company classified them as supervisors. According to the Rite Aid class action lawsuit, the workers’ duties did not include store or department management, and workers lacked the authority to hire or fire or directly supervise other employees.

The class action settlement was recently approved by US District Judge John E. Jones III. The settlement could affect 6,100 people in 31 states.

Ok—That’s a wrap. Happy Friday—see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 6.29.12 – Jergens, PNC Bank, Asbestos Mesothelioma

The weekly wrap of class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending June 29, 2012.

Top Lawsuits

Were you a soft touch for Jergens Skin Firming Daily Toning Moisturizer? Kao USA, the makers of the moisturizer that does everything except take the garbage out, is facing a consumer fraud class action lawsuit over allegations that perhaps it was overstating the benefits of the product. Now, there’s a surprise.

The federal lawsuit alleges “Kao makes erroneous claims in the packaging, labeling, marketing, advertising and promotion for the Product, such as falsely asserting that it is ‘clinically proven to reduce the appearance of cellulite,’ that it will tighten a user’s skin, and produce improved resiliency, elasticity, and firmness.” The Jergens class action lawsuit also states that these claims are “erroneous, false and misleading to a reasonable consumer.”

“Kao’s Product sales were based upon this false promise and misleading advertisements targeting vulnerable consumers which cause, and continues to cause, consumers to pay a price premium for the Product,” the lawsuit claims. “Plaintiff and other purchasers of the Product have suffered injury in fact and have lost money as a result of Kao’s false misrepresentations. Plaintiff purchased the Product because of the claims made by Defendant, and would not have purchased the product if she had known that this advertising was false.”

The lead Plaintiff claims she relied on the misleading statements on the product’s bottle in her decision to purchase the $6 product. She is seeking damages and equitable relief for a proposed Class of all California residents who purchased Jergens Skin Firming Daily Toning Moisturizer for personal use. Sign me up!

Top Settlements

Cha-Ching…the penny drops on PNC Bank. They agreed this week to pay $90 million in the settlement of a class action lawsuit accusing the bank of improperly manipulating its customers’ debit card transactions in order to generate excess overdraft fees revenues. No comment.

The PNC Bank lawsuit, part of multi-district litigation involving more than 30 different banks entitled In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, is pending before U.S. District Judge James Lawrence King in Miami.

The lawsuit claims that PNC Bank’s internal computer system re-sequenced the actual order of its customers’ debit card and ATM transactions, by posting them in highest-to-lowest dollar amount rather than in the actual order in which they were initiated by customers and authorized by the bank. According to the lawsuit, PNC Bank’s practice resulted in its customers being charged substantially more in overdraft fees than if the debit card and ATM transactions had been posted in the order in which they were initiated and authorized.

PNC Bank is not the first bank involved in this multi-district litigation to settle similar claims. In addition to a $410 million settlement with Bank of America approved last year, settlements with JPMorgan Chase Bank, Citizens Bank and TD Bank have been announced in recent months.

Asbestos Settlement. On a bittersweet note, Bobbie Izell, who worked in construction in the 1960s and 1970s, and his wife have been awarded $48 million by a California court in settlement of their asbestos mesothelioma lawsuit.

The lawsuit named Union Carbide and a number of other defendants including Riverside Cement and California Portland Cement Company as defendants.

Izell developed mesothelioma during his 30 year career as a cement contractor in the construction industry. He built thousands of homes, commercial buildings, and churches, many of which contained asbestos. Izell also bought and renovated properties and many of the products he used for the renovation contained asbestos. Consequently, between 1947 and 1980, Izell suffered consistent exposure to the carcinogen.

The asbestos lawsuit was filed by Izell and his wife shortly after Izell was diagnosed with asbestos mesothelioma. According to media reports, during the trial Union Carbide argued that Calidria, which is the type of asbestos they manufactured, does or did not cause cancer. However, evidence was produced in the form of corporate memos which revealed that Union Carbide staff and physicians were aware the material was making works ill, but this information was not made public.

Ok—That’s a wrap. See you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 6.22.12 – Adidas, LinkedIn, Paxil False Advertising

A weekly wrap of top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending June 22, 2012. This week’s top stories include Adidas, LinkedIn, Paxil False Advertising

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Barefoot Blues? Adidas is facing a potential consumer fraud class action lawsuit. Filed this week, the lawsuit alleges that Adidas adiPure training shoes, which capitalize on the “barefoot running” fitness craze, are falsely marketed.

Filed by plaintiff Joseph Rocco, from New York, the adiPure class action lawsuit claims Rocco bought a $90 pair of adiPure shoes that did not deliver the increased training efficiency and decreased risk of injury promised in advertisements.

Instead, the lawsuit claims, the shoes actually increase the risk for bruising and foot damage, due to their decreased padding and other structural differences from more traditional running shoes, the lawsuit states. Rocco said he and other customers were never warned about the potential hazards and that, as a result, he suffered compound fractures after training in the shoes. Yikes!

The lawsuit seeks to certify a class of everyone who purchased adiPure shoes since they were launched in August 2011. Rocco is seeking a refund for the shoes, as well as statutory damages.

Password Compromised? LinkedIn Corp is facing an internet privacy class action lawsuit resulting from a recent hacking that compromised some 6.5 million registered users’ passwords, which reportedly is less than 5 percent of LinkedIn’s user base.

The LinkedIn lawsuit was filed by Katie Szpyrka, who has been a registered account holder with LinkedIn since 2010, and who paid $26.95 per month to upgrade to a “premium” LinkedIn account.

The lawsuit claims LinkedIn “failed to properly safeguard its users’ digitally stored personally identifiable information including email addresses, passwords, and login credentials.” The lawsuit also states, “Through its Privacy Policy, LinkedIn promises its users that ‘all information that [they] provide [to LinkedIn] will be protected with industry standard protocols and technology. In direct contradiction to this promise, LinkedIn failed to comply with basic industry standards by maintaining millions of users’ PII in its servers’ databases in a weak encryption format, and without implementing other crucial security measures.” This, the suit alleges, is in violation of the company’s user agreement and privacy policy.

Top Settlements

Paxil False Advertising Settlement. Were you adversely affected by Paxil? A preliminary settlement has been reached in a Paxil class action lawsuit, and if approved, will provide money to California residents who were 18 years old or older and who paid for any portion of the price of the prescription antidepressant while living in California from January 14, 1999 through January 1, 2003, and who qualify under the settlement (these people are called “Class Members”).

If you’re included, you may ask for a payment, or you can exclude yourself from, or object to, the settlement. The Superior Court for the State of California will have a hearing to decide whether to approve the settlement so that payments can be issued.

The lawsuit claims that GlaxoSmithKline falsely advertised and promoted Paxil as being non-habit forming or non-addictive and that GlaxoSmithKline’s advertisements and promotional materials failed to disclose the risk of symptoms from stopping or discontinuing Paxil. GlaxoSmithKline denies each of these allegations.

What Can I Get from the Paxil Settlement?

The Paxil settlement provides monetary compensation as follows: a full refund of the actual Out-of-Pocket Expenses of claimants who purchased Paxil during the Class Period and who have valid documentary Proof of Purchase, provided that the total amount of payments to claimants with documented Proof of Purchase cannot exceed $8,500,000.00.

For claimants without Proof of Purchase, GlaxoSmithKline shall pay actual Out-of-Pocket Expenses up to $80.00 per claimant, provided that the total amount paid to claimants without Proof of Purchase cannot exceed $500,000.00. GlaxoSmithKline will also: (1) make a charitable contribution of $1,000,000.00 to be shared equally by four California mental health charities; (2) agree to certain limits on any future advertising for Paxil; and (3) include certain information about Paxil on its corporate website.

How Can I File a Paxil Settlement Claim?

You must complete the Claim Form, which you can obtain at CApaxilclassaction.com, and mail it no later than October 10, 2012 to the address on the form. Whether you receive a payment and the amount you get depends on whether you have a valid claim, how much Paxil you paid for, whether or not you have valid Proof of Purchase, and how many valid claims are filed.

How to Opt Out of or Object to the Paxil Settlement

If you don’t want a payment from the Paxil settlement, or if you don’t want to be legally bound by the settlement, you must exclude yourself by October 10, 2012, or you won’t be able to sue, or continue to sue, GlaxoSmithKline about the legal claims in this case. If you exclude yourself, you cannot get a payment from this settlement. If you stay in the settlement, you may choose to object to it, if you do so by October 10, 2012. You may both object and still participate in the settlement and receive money. The detailed notice explains how to exclude yourself or object.

The Court will hold a hearing in this case, called Grair, et al. v. GlaxoSmithKline, Inc., Case No. BC 288536, to consider whether to approve the settlement and a request by the lawyers representing the Class for fees and expenses. You may ask to appear and speak at the hearing, but you don’t have to.

For more information, go to A detailed notice is available at CApaxilclassaction.com or write to the Paxil Settlement Administratorc/o GCG, P.O. Box 9839Dublin, OH 43017-5739.

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

Week Adjourned: 5.18.12 – Tetley Tea, Skechers, Verizon

The weekly wrap on top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending May 18, 2012. This week’s top stories: Tetley Tea, Skechers and Verizon.

Top Class Actions

Actually, this week it’s Top Consumer Fraud Class Actions—because false advertising class action lawsuits seem to be the theme right now…

What’s Brewing at Tetley Tea? Let’s take Tetley Tea as an example—as of this week, the Tetley Tea is facing a federal consumer fraud class action lawsuit over allegations it falsely advertises the health benefits of its tea products, specifically that they are an “excellent” or “natural” source of antioxidants.

The Tetley Tea lawsuit states, “Tetley utilizes improper antioxidant, nutrient content, and health claims that have been expressly condemned by the FDA in numerous enforcement actions and warning letters” to other companies that made similar antioxidant claims, such as Unilever’s Lipton Tea.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all consumers in California who purchased Tetley Tea’s Classic Blend Black Tea, British Blend Black Tea, Pure Green Tea, Iced Tea Blend Tea, and/or Iced Tea Mix Tea within the last four years.

The lawsuit is seeking damages, restitution and other bits and pieces, for alleged claims of unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business acts and practices; misleading and deceptive advertising; untrue advertising; and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Act and Beverly-Song Act. That’s some laundry list.

Top Settlements

Couple of big preliminary settlements on—you guessed it—consumer fraud/false advertising class action lawsuits to tell you about this week…

Skechers Sketchy Health Claims. This one, all over the media, implies that Skechers may be guilty of sketchy health claims. At least the FTC thinks so. But not the shoe manufacturer, of course. Nevertheless, Skechers USA has agreed to pay $45M to resolve allegations brought by the US and state governments that it deceived customers about the health benefits of its Shape-ups athletic shoes.

The allegations center on claims that the shoe manufacturer’s athletic toning shoes help people lose weight and strengthen their buttocks and legs. Skechers aren’t the first athletic shoe maker to face penalties for their advertising claims—Reebok also got hit and settled for $25 million, but hey, according to news reports, these shoes are big business. Skechers reportedly made $1.4 billion in 2009.

According to a statement by the US Federal Trade Commission, Skechers, based in Manhattan Beach, California, also made false claims in advertising for its Resistance Runner, Tone-ups and Toners shoes.

According to a report by Bloomberg, the ads for Skechers that were challenged by the FTC include one for Shape-ups that told consumers they could “get in shape without setting foot in a gym,” according to the statement. The FTC alleges the company made unsupported claims that the shoes would provide more weight loss and muscle toning than regular fitness shoes.

You may be a class member if you purchased eligible Skechers toning shoes since August 1, 2008, with limited exclusions. The Court has not yet ruled on whether the settlement should be preliminarily approved. The Court may not grant preliminary approval or may require certain changes to the proposed settlement.

If the Court grants preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, you will have rights which you may wish to exercise, including rights to opt-out of the settlement or object.

Under the terms of the preliminary settlement, Skechers has agreed to provide refunds to consumers who bought the following Eligible Shoes as new since August 1, 2008:

Skechers Shape-ups rocker bottom shoes

Skechers Resistance Runner rocker bottom shoes

Skechers Shape-ups Toners/Trainers

Skechers Tone-ups with podded outsoles

Skechers Tone-ups non-podded sandals

Skechers boots

Skechers clogs

Skechers trainers (Tone-ups, non-podded sole)

The total refund you can receive from the Skechers shape-ups settlement will depend on how many Eligible Shoes you purchased from August 1, 2008, onwards, as well as the total number of valid claim forms submitted by other Class Members.

Possible reimbursements could be:

$40 – $80 for Shape-ups;

$27 – $50 for podded sole shoes;

$20 – $40 for Tone-ups (non-podded sole); and

$42 – $80 for Resistance Runners

To find out more about the Skechers settlement, whether or not you could qualify as a class member, and to download forms, visit http://www.skecherssettlement.com.

Verizon Calling —Verizon Land Lines that is. A preliminary settlement has been reached in a consumer fraud class action pending against Verizon. This time, it’s not health claims that are the issue—but third-party charges.

If you were billed for third-party charges on your Verizon landline telephone bill, you may be entitled to a payment from this class action settlement, if the settlement is approved.

The Settlement will provide for payments to all class members who properly submit Claim Forms by November 15, 2012. The payments will be either $40 in the case of approved Flat Payment Claims or the full amount (i.e., 100%) of unauthorized Third-Party Charges you paid in the case of approved Full Payment Claims. Some class members may have a claim for less than $40. Class counsel contends that some class members may have a claim for hundreds of dollars, or more.

You must submit a claim form in order to qualify for payment. This is the only way to get a payment. You may submit a Flat Payment Claim for $40 or a Full Payment Claim for 100% of all unauthorized charges you paid. To file a claim, you must complete a Claim Form either online or download a Claim Form, print it out and mail it to the Settlement Administrator by November 15, 2012. You can find the claims forms by visiting www.verizonthirdpartybillingsettlement.com.

The Court in charge of this case has given its preliminary approval to the Settlement but still has to decide whether to give final approval to the Settlement. Payments will be made if the Court gives final approval to the Settlement and after appeals, if any, are resolved.

OKee dokee. Enough business as usual—it’s the weekend! See you at the bar—where the health benefits are obvious and require no advertising…

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

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

Top Class Actions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wonder if that settlement amount includes interest?

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

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

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

Top Class Actions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Class Actions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wait—is that a bunny on my lawn?

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

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

Top Class Actions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Week Adjourned: 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…