J&J

Week Adjourned: 4.8.16 – Hyundai, Kia, Hertz, J&J Hip Implants

Top Class Action Lawsuits

New Month, New Defective Auto Lawsuit… This time, it’s a Hyundai and Kia defective automobile class action. The car companies are facing the wrath of consumers, who allege the paint on 2006-2016 Hyundai Santa Fe, Sonata, and Elantra vehicles contain an identical and inherent defect which causes the paint to bubble, peel and flake off the vehicle, which can lead to rusting and corrosion.

Filed by Michelle Resnick, Shelby Cramer, Lauren Freed, Paul Sandlin, Patricia Reynolds, Christopher Baker, and Tara Mulrey, individually and for all others similarly situated, the lawsuit claims vehicle owners must either live with these problems or spend significant amounts of money to repair and repaint the vehicles.

The plaintiffs allege breach of express and implied warranties, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, violation of California’s Business and Professions Code, and violations of unfair and deceptive trade practices acts in several states. Go get’em.

The case is US District Court for the Central District of California Case number 8:16-CV-00593-BRO-PJW.

Some Hurtin’ for Hertz…Heads up Hertz customers…in yet another consumer fraud class action filing this week, America’s largest car rental company stands accused of not playing fair with its terms and conditions as stated on its website. The Hertz lawsuit, in fact, alleges violations of the New Jersey’s Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA). Read on.

The skinny is that named plaintiff, David Hecht, claims the terms and conditions states on the Hertz website violate TCCWNA because of a failure to state how they affect New Jersey residents.

Here’s what that looks like: Hecht’s allegations target Hertz’s website for enrolling in the car rental company’s Gold Plus Rewards Program. Hecht’s lawsuit specifically references a portion of the TCCWNA that states “No consumer contract, notice or sign shall state that any of its provisions is or may be void, unenforceable or inapplicable without specifying which provisions are or are not void, unenforceable or inapplicable within the State of New Jersey.”

Hecht seeks to represent two classes in his lawsuit. The first would be those New Jersey residents enrolled in Hertz Gold Plus Rewards when the case was filed. This class also would include New Jersey residents enrolled in the program six years prior to whenever the website’s Terms and Conditions stated “in words or substance, that Gold Plus Rewards offers are void where prohibited, without specifying whether these provisions are or are not void, unenforceable or inapplicable within the State of New Jersey.”

The second proposed class would include New Jersey residents who rented a Hertz vehicle for personal, household or family purposes via company’s website within six years of the date of the filing. That class would cover a period when Hertz’s Terms of Use said “that except as otherwise required by law, price, rate and availability of products or services are subject to change without notice and that the Hertz’ General Terms of Use are void where prohibited, without specifying whether these provisions are void, unenforceable, or inapplicable within the State of New Jersey.”

Top Settlements

J&J $502M Hip Award. This should cause some serious thinking at J&J. The company was ordered to pay a whopping $502 million settlement this week, which was awarded by a jury in Dallas hearing the consolidated lawsuits of five plaintiffs who all allege that DePuy Orthopedics and Johnson & Johnson (J&J) Ultamet hip implant is defective and caused them pain, injury and suffering.

The plaintiffs who accused the company of hiding flaws in its Pinnacle artificial hips that caused the devices to prematurely fail and left them facing surgeries and pain.

FYI—the DePuy Ultamet hip replacement devices are metal-on-metal. The problem with metal-on-metal devices is that metal debris can reportedly come loose, resulting in metals being absorbed by the patient’s surrounding tissue and causing excess levels of chromium and cobalt in the patient’s blood. Furthermore, patients may experience pain, inflammation and soft tissue damage in the area around the hip, making mobility difficult if not impossible.

The jury awarded $142 million in actual damages and $360 million in punitive damages. You want to say congratulations, but “really?”

Ok, that’s a wrap folks…see you at the bar!

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: 7.17.10

Top Class Actions

Recall on a Rolling Basis. This week’s pharmaceutical lawsuit is against Johnson &Johnson (J&J) alleging fraud and racketeering and demanding compensation for recalled children’s allergy and cold medicines—you remember—the recall that kept going and going—first on April 30thconcerning over 40 different types of kiddies cold meds, and then again in June—’oops—we maybe should have recalled these also…’ and once more for good measure in July.

But it’s not the recall that’s the problem apparently, it’s the fact that J&J’s McNeil Consumer Healthcare and McNeil-PPC had offered consumers coupons for refunds of the recalled products, which consumers have rejected, according to the suit.

According to a report on Bloomberg’s Businessweek, the complaint states the coupons are worthless because McNeil has stopped making the medicines and “wrongly assumes that all consumers will want to purchase the company’s children’s products at some uncertain future date.”

So, the suits seek to proceed on behalf of plaintiffs’ groups for residents of Illinois, Texas and Florida, as well as consumers in the U.S. and Canada, who have bought the drugs since December 2008.

Sweating the Glass Ceiling? 24-hour Fitness also got hit with a class action this week brought by its employees over allegations of discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin and gender.

Apparently this very large chain of fitness facilities—as in 400 fitness centers, Continue reading “Week Adjourned: 7.17.10”