Merck

Week Adjourned: 1.15.16 – EOS Lip Balm, Priceline, Vioxx

Top Class Action Lawsuits

EOS Evolution of Sore? Heads up anyone who purchased EOS lip balm—the celebrity-endorsed lip balm—got hit with a consumer fraud class action lawsuit this week, alleging the product causes lips to crack, bleed and blister. Yah, that’s a great look.

EOS, which stands for Evolution of Smooth, pays celebrities such as Kim Kardashian, Brittney Spears, Miley Cyrus, Hillary Duff, and others, to post pictures on Instagram and social media, creating a viral marketing frenzy around the product, targeted at consumers. EOS claims the lip-balm is, in addition to making lips smooth, a travel companion and a cure for health and hygiene problems.

Filed by Plaintiff Rachael Cronin, the EOS lawsuit alleges Cronin purchased EOS lip balm based on these claims. As with all of EOS packaging, the packaging contained no warnings about potential adverse side-effects from the products use. Ms. Cronin began applying the lip balm that same day she purchased it. Within hours of applying the product for the first time, her lips became substantially dry and coarse, what Ms. Cronin describes as feeling like “sandpaper,” causing her to apply more of the balm on her lip to achieve the results of becoming “sensationally smooth.”

However, Ms. Cronin’s lips did not become smooth, instead they began severely cracking on the edges causing flaking and bleeding from the cracks. (Sensationally sore? New tag line maybe?) By the next day, Ms. Cronin’s lips and surrounding skin area allegedly had severe blistering and rashes causing her to seek medical care on Monday, December 7, 2015. Ms. Cronin was in severe shock and panic. Her symptoms lasted approximately 10 days. Not good.

Ms. Cronin shared the story of her experience with EOS and posted a picture of her face with boils and blisters on Facebook. The post set off a frenzy of responses from other individuals who shared the identical experience with EOS. It became clear this was not an isolated incident but instead hundreds, possibly tens of thousands of consumers may be affected.

The case is 2:16-cv-00235.

Priceline Profiting? Priceline got hit with a proposed consumer fraud class action lawsuit this week, over allegations it collects taxes from customers for hotel rooms, car rentals and airline tickets booked through the site, but those taxes are not returned to customers when reservations go unused. That’s a nice little earner—if true.

According to the Priceline lawsuit, filed by Priceline customer Richard Laquer, the taxes and fees collected for his car rental in June in San Francisco were not returned to him even though he never picked up the car. Additionally, he claims that this money was never paid to local tax authorities, meaning The Priceline Group Inc, was unfairly profiting from its collection. Ka ching!

“Priceline Group, in charging ‘taxes and fees’ for a rental or purchase transactions that did not complete, violated various local, state and federal laws regarding the charge and collection of taxes,” the lawsuit states. “Priceline Group has been unjustly enriched by the charge and collection of ‘taxes and fees’ for vehicle rentals that did not occur.”

Laquer claims that he used the “Name Your Own Price” feature on the Priceline website to reserve a car rental for $35. However, he was also charged an additional $19.05 in “taxes and fees” for the transaction. When he did not rent the car Priceline kept the charges, the lawsuit states.

“Priceline Group knew when these representations were made, or made them as a positive assertion recklessly, that it would not pay the ‘taxes and fees’ it collected from plaintiff and the putative class members to the various federal, state and local taxing authorities in the event the rental or purchase was not completed,” the complaint states.

The potential class action asserts negligence, unjust enrichment and false representation. It is seeking disgorgement of the taxes and fees collected by Priceline and not returned with canceled orders and actual and punitive damages of not less than $5 million, and an injunction prohibiting the company from charging taxes and fees in the future unless a transaction is completed.

The case is Laquer et al. v. The Priceline Group Inc., case number 5:16-cv-00015, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.

Top Settlements

Vioxx Socked…Again. Wow—talk about the drug that will not die. This week, Merck announced it will pay $830 million to end the Vioxx multidistrict litigation brought by investors who alleged securities fraud violations concerning the illegal marketing of the company’s now defunct NSAID pain killer Vioxx. In 2011, Merck agreed to pay a criminal penalty of almost $1 billion over its marketing of Vioxx.

In a statement issued by Merck & Co. Inc, the pharmaceutical company denied any wrongdoing, and noted that it still faces individual lawsuits stemming from the same alleged misconduct, specifically that it marketed Vioxx for off-label uses and downplayed its risk of causing heart attacks.

The allegations made by investors are similar to those of the criminal case, alleging Merck attempted to conceal Vioxx’s cardiovascular risks, and claimed that patients taking the drug in a clinical study for rheumatoid arthritis were five times more likely to suffer a heart attack than those who took the comparator drug, naproxen.

In 2004 Merck was forced to recall Vioxx. The recall, in conjunction with media reports concerning the associated risks of the drug, caused Merck’s stock price to fall dramatically, according to the investors, whose claims against the company were consolidated in New Jersey federal court the following year.

The case is In re: Merck & Co. Inc. Securities, Derivative & ERISA Litigation, MDL number 1658 and case numbers 2:05-cv-01151 and 2:05-cv-02367, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Ok—That’s a wrap folks… Happy Friday…See you at the Bar!

Week Adjourned: 6.13.14 – McDonald’s, Coppertone, Lowe’s

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top stories include McDonald’s, Coppertone and Lowe’s home improvement.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Supersize this baby! McDonald’s is facing an unpaid overtime lawsuit class action lawsuit brought by four former employees in the Los Angeles area. The lawsuit alleges McDonald’s Corp violated wage and hour laws by “requiring workers to work off the clock, placing their rest and meal breaks at the end of their shifts and not paying final wages in a timely manner.”

The McDonald’s lawsuit was originally filed by plaintiff Maria Sanchez in January 2013, but has subsequently been consolidated into a nationwide group of employment class actions against the fast food chain, all alleging illegal labor practices. The lawsuits claim that McDonalds’ managers falsified time records to erase certain employees’ actual hours of work, prohibited meal breaks, required unpaid work from employees before and after their shifts, and withheld overtime pay.

The lawsuit further alleges that McDonald’s Corporation has tried to reduce “labor costs by requiring its restaurants to limit labor costs to a specific percentage of gross sales, causing managers to violate state labor laws to keep costs in line.”

The case is Maria Sanchez et al., v. McDonald’s Restaurants of California Inc. et al., case number BC499888, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

Um—I’m lovin’ It!

Is Merck & Co. Inc, full of S#$PF? According to a recently filed consumer fraud class action lawsuit—it would appear so. The lawsuit alleges the pharmaceutical company is overcharging for its Coppertone sunscreen products with Sun Protection Factors (SPF) of 55 and higher because they contain “virtually identical” active ingredients as the Coppertone SPF 50 products.

Filed by plaintiff Danika Gisvold, the lawsuit claims Merck is participating in a “false, misleading and deceptive” advertising campaign. Specifically, Gisvold alleges the US Food and Drug Administration has reviewed SPF ratings since 1978, and has found that SPF values over 50 don’t provide an increase in protection over SPF 50 products.

According to the Coppertone lawsuit, while SPF value is an indicator of the level of sunburn protection provided by the product, and consumers have learned over time to associate higher SPF with greater protection, the SPF 100+ products do not provide twice the ultraviolet B protection of an SPF 50 product.

“In fact, none of the sunscreen products in the Coppertone SPF 55-100+ collection provide any additional clinical benefit over the Coppertone SPF 50 products,” according to the complaint, which also notes that the FDA had voiced concern about labeling a product with a specific SPF value higher than 50. “The FDA’s findings are based on, inter alia, scientific tests that demonstrate SPF 100 sunscreens block 99 percent of UV rays, while SPF 50 sunscreens block 98 percent, an immaterial difference that provides no additional clinical benefit to consumers against sunburn.”

The Coppertone lawsuit alleges the only reason consumers would purchase an SPF product over SFP 55 is because they believe it provides greater protection than a lesser SPF product, therefore, Merck’s Coppertone SPF 55- 100 are overpriced. “As a result of Merck’s superior UVB protection claims, consumers, including plaintiff and members of the proposed class, have purchased products that do not perform as advertised,” the complaint states.

The plaintiff is seeking to represent a national class of plaintiffs claiming Merck’s representations of superior UVB protection are false, misleading and reasonably likely to deceive the public, and that Merck spreads the false claims through advertising inserts, the Internet and labels “where they cannot be missed by consumers.”

Of course, if you are really unsure about your SPFs, you could always wear long sleeves and a hat—but that just ain’t as sexy.

Top Settlements

Well Lowe and behold…a $6.5 settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit pending against t Lowe’s—the DIY guys. The deal, if approved, will resolve a labor law class action filed by two former contractors, Ronald Shephard and Henry Romines, who allege Lowe’s violated California labor law.

Specifically, the lawsuit states that Lowe’s treated the independent contractors as employees when they were retained to install garage doors. While Romines voluntarily dismissed the claims Shepard continued with the lawsuit, and the court certified certified a class of: “All persons who installed products for Lowe’s or performed services for Lowe’s in the State of California and who were treated as independent contractors by Lowe’s but over whom Lowe’s exercised control and discretion in the performance of their installation services.” The certified class period runs from 2008 to the present.

According to the Lowe’s lawsuit: “Specifically, plaintiffs assert that Lowe’s had the right to control, and in fact did control all aspects of installation services performed by Shephard and all other Type 1 and general contractor installers,” according to the settlement for preliminary approval proposed to the U.S Northern District Court of California, Oakland division.

“Plaintiffs further allege that Lowe’s misclassification of the installers caused harm not only to the installers who did not receive the benefits attendant with being treated as employees, but also resulted in harm to the installation companies that contracted with Lowe’s,” the lawsuit states.

In discussing the proposed Lowe’s settlement, Shephard’s attorneys write, “Shephard determined that if this action proceeded to trial and if Shephard prevailed on all of his claims, the maximum amount recoverable for the class would have been approximately $33 million. Shephard submits that a recovery of $6.5 million, or approximately 20 percent of the recoverable damages, is an eminently fair and reasonable recovery.”

It is estimated that some 4,029 individual installers and 949 installation companies are eligible to receive settlement funds, and “The maximum settlement amount equates to about $1,613.30 per settlement class member,” court documents state.

Ok, Folks—we’re done here—have a great weekend and we’ll see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 2.14.14 – Michaels, Memphis Cemetery, NuvaRing

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements including Michaels craft stores data breach, Memphis TN cemetery and funeral homes, and NuvaRing settlements.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Crafty Hackers? Another week—another data breach class action lawsuit. This one targets Michaels Arts and Crafts stores—where maybe there was a bit too much creativity happening, and not on the sales floor. The company is facing a federal data breach class action lawsuit following the release of its statement announcing customers’ personal information may have been stolen.

Filed by customer and plaintiff Christina Moyer, the Michaels lawsuit, entitled Moyer v. Michaels Stores Inc., Case No. 1:140cv-00561, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleges the Texas-based retailer was negligent in protecting customer information. Specifically, Moyer, who shopped at Michaels recently, alleges she is now paying for credit monitoring and identity theft protection because of the possible compromise, and that Michaels breached an implied contract with her and others by failing to adequately protect their private information.

Further, the lawsuit claims Michaels “did not adequately monitor their information technology system for the presence of intruders in a manner that would enable them to detect this intrusion, so that they breach of security and diversion of customer information was able to continue unnoticed fora period of time.”

Moyer is seeking a declaratory judgment that Michaels pay for credit monitoring and identity theft insurance, and be ordered to indemnify Moyer and the class for future harm.

Do you Know Where your Loved Ones are? This is deeply creepy—in so many ways…. A $100 million consumer fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against Galilee Memorial Gardens cemetery, its owners M.J. Edwards, N.J. Ford, and two well-known Memphis funeral homes, and any other funeral home that contracted business with Galilee Memorial Gardens after December 31, 2010, which is when its business license became invalid.

The funeral home lawsuit alleges the defendants lost bodies, disinterred bodies, stacked bodies/caskets on top of one another in single burial plots, crushed caskets to enable stacking more than one individual in a single burial plot, and lost track of remains and buried bodies, among other things.

Anyone who buried a body at Galilee Memorial Gardens after December 31, 2010 was doing so in violation of state law. Attorneys for the plaintiffs estimate at least 1,000 bodies were buried there in the past three years.

The lawsuit also states that funeral homes that conducted business with Galilee were on active and constructive notice that the individual who held the business license for the cemetery had died months before the license expired.

The lawsuit seeks to represent anyone with a loved one buried at Galilee Memorial Gardens in the past three years.

Top Settlements

Hundreds of NuvaRing lawsuits are about to be settled by Merck & Co. The New Jersey based pharmaceutical company has agreed to pay $100 million to settle the lawsuits, and end allegations it downplayed serious health risks associated with the contraceptive device.

The NuvaRing agreement will settle cases in both federal and state courts, with plaintiffs expected to receive about $58,000 per complaint.

Currently, there are over 1,700 NuvaRing personal injury and defective product lawsuits pending against Merck. They allege the company failed to adequately warn women about the potential increased risk for developing dangerous blood clots known as venous thromboembolism associated with the device. Plaintiffs are seeking damages for a range of injuries allegedly caused by the birth control device, including heart attack, stroke and sudden death.

Available in the US since 2001, NuvaRing is one of several contraceptive products that have been linked to an increased risk of developing blood clots that can cause strokes and heart attacks. As of March 2012, approximately 12,000 lawsuits had been brought against Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the manufacturer of Yasmin, Yaz, Beyaz and Safyral, alleging an increased risk of blood clots (deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE)) and gallbladder problems. Ocella, the generic version of Yasmin, is also associated with serious side effects, some of which are potentially fatal. In 2013, Bayer AG paid $1.6 billion to settle those lawsuits. If the $100 million figure Merck is supposedly to pay proves accurate, it will be a much smaller settlement.

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

Week Adjourned: 9.28.12 – Maybelline, Coppertone, Sallie Mae Student Loans

The class action lawsuit and settlement wrap for the week ending September 28, 2012. Top stories include Maybelline, Coppertone and Sallie Mae.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

A Sticky Situation? (ok— that’s bad—I know). Maybelline is the latest company to face a consumer fraud class action lawsuit. This one alleges the company’s “Super Stay” lipstick and lip gloss don’t last as long as promised. The Maybelline lawsuit accuses L’Oreal SA, the parent company of Maybelline, of falsely advertising the staying power of both products, which sell for about $9 each.

The lawsuit, filed by Carol Leebove, Wanda Santa and Denise Santiago, claims L’Oreal and Maybelline make “misleading, inaccurate and deceptive” advertising claims regarding its “Super Stay 14HR Lipstick” and “Super Stay 10HR Stain Gloss.”

The women claim that while the products are advertised as having “super staying power” that “won’t fade,” that’s not been their experience with the products. According to the lawsuit, “the Super Stay products do not remain on the wearer’s lips for the extended periods as advertised” and “wear off and fade after only a few hours of wear.” One of the Plaintiffs claims the so-called long-lasting lipstick wears off as soon as she eats a meal or has a drink. So, we’ll see if this lawsuit has staying power… as the class has yet to be certified.

Top Settlements

The Proof wasn’t in the Lotion? Merck’s in the news again this week, this time with a settlement of a consumer fraud class action lawsuit over advertising claims made by its Coppertone franchise. The preliminary Coppertone settlement involves Merck ponying up between $3 million and $10 million in damages to the class.

The lawsuit, which was filed in 2003, alleges Merck made false claims about the benefits of its Coppertone sunscreen products. To be fair, Merck inherited the lawsuit in 2009 when it bought Schering-Plough Corp, which owned the popular Coppertone franchise.

As part of the settlement, Merck has agreed that all Coppertone sunscreen products manufactured on or after June 22, 2012 for sale in the United States, its territories and possessions, will not use the terms “sunblock,” “waterproof,” “sweatproof,” “all day” and/or “all day protection” in the label, advertising, marketing or promotion of the products.

When the settlement receives final approval, class members who purchased the Coppertone products at issue will be able to submit a claim worth up to $1.50 for each eligible sunscreen product purchased. Well, that ought to help!

Student Loan Relief? Finally, this week, a class action lawsuit settlement has been agreed between student loan borrowers and a subsidiary of SLM Corp. The lawsuit (Mark A. Arthur, et al. v. Sallie Mae Inc., No. 10-0198, W.D. Wash.), claimed the subsidiary violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by making a number of non-emergency autodialed calls and/or automated text messages to the borrowers’ cellular telephones in an attempt to collect on outstanding student loan debt. Nice!

The Sallie Mae settlement terms, which must first receive final approval, include Sallie Mae paying out $24.15 million to the borrowers that received the autodialed calls or automated text messages to their cellular phones by Sallie Mae Inc.

And on that note—I’m going to the bar. Have a great weekend!

Week Adjourned: 1.21.12

A weekly wrap up of top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending January 21, 2012

Top Class Actions

Holy HELOC Batman—It’s been certified! A class action lawsuit brought by a couple in Cupertino in 2009—and which has been through 4 attempts to get certified—finally got the nod from a federal court judge this past week. And this one could affect many people.

The back story—Washington Mutual and JPMorgan Chase (Chase has since acquired WaMu) allegedly reduced credit limits on Jeffrey and Jenifer Schulken’s home equity line of credit (HELOC) without valid reasons.

Specifically, the HELOC class action lawsuit alleges violations of the Truth in Lending Act violations and unfair competition among other claims. The Cupertino couple allege they were informed by Chase, by letter, that their home equity credit lines would be suspended because they did not have enough monthly income to satisfy their debts. The Schulken’s allege that the monthly income of $11,200 that Chase claimed the couple stated on their applications, was inaccurate, that they had never “provided such an inflated income figure to WaMu, and that if the Schulkens’ file indicated such an income, then WaMu had intentionally misrepresented their income.”

After four attempts by Chase to have the complaint dismissed, two classes have now been certified: the “inability to verify” class, and a subclass of borrowers whose credit lines were suspended because Chase could not verify their financial circumstances.

The plaintiffs’ class definition to include “only those members who signed contracts that (1) arise from heritage WaMu customers, and (2) state that the borrower must provide, upon the lender’s request, ‘a current financial statement, new credit application, or both.'”

Top Settlements

Couple of big pharma settlements announced this week…

At the top of the hit parade we have Johnson & Johnson (J&J). They have reportedly agreed to pay $158 million to settle a lawsuit in Texas that alleges the company defrauded the state by misleading doctors about its antipsychotic drug Risperdal.

The deal will put an end to claims that J&J marketed Risperdal off label—for unapproved uses—and downplayed health risks associated with the drug. Texas had originally sought at least $579 million in damages. Well, shoot for the stars—isn’t that how the saying goes?

Bloomberg reported that the settlement follows some rather incriminating testimony given in court last week. Testimony that included an expert eye witness stating that J&J hid data showing Risperdal could cause weight gain that could lead to diabetes. According to Bloomberg “the witness also alleged that J&J had key study [ Study 113] results several years before it added warnings about weight gain to the drug’s label.”

Bloomberg notes in its report that J&J’s unpublished studies—ah—yes—more than one—were cited in a South Carolina case that brought a $327 million judgment against the pharmaceutical manufacturer. “It is apparent to this court that this information was not disclosed because if did not fit the marketing department’s vision for the promotion and marketing of this drug,” Judge Roger Couch wrote in a ruling (as quoted by Bloomberg). Amen to that.

And singing from a similar song sheet—we have Merck. It was announced this week that they have agreed to pay up to $37 million to settle a Canadian Vioxx class action lawsuit. Included in the settlement is $10 million for costs and fees. Plaintiffs’ lawyer said up to 2,000 Canadians may be eligible for compensation.

FYI—Vioxx (Rofecoxib) was on the market from 1999 to 2004, prescribed to patients as a pain-reliever for arthritis, osteoarthritis, menstrual pain, and other acute pain. Vioxx was recalled and pulled off the market when it was linked to deadly side effects heart attack, stroke, kidney damage, and arrythmia. This led to billions of dollars’ worth of litigation, including a $4.85 billion settlement that covers most of the U.S. plaintiffs.

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

Week Adjourned: 11.26.11

A wrap up of the week’s leading class action lawsuits and settlements – November 26, 2011

Top Class Actions

Do you know who’s got your personal information? An unfair business practices class action lawsuit has been filed in the Southern District Court of Florida against Best Buy Corporation for violating the Drivers’ Privacy Protection Act or “DPPA”, a federal statute that protects the privacy of personal information assembled by State Department of Motor Vehicles (DMVs).

The lawsuit alleges Best Buy has established a business practice of taking, storing, using and/or sharing customers’ personal or highly restricted personal information, without consent, when customers make a normal return of Best Buy merchandise. Their receipt indicates that Best Buy “tracks exchanges and returns … and some of the information from your ID may be stored in a secure, encrypted database of customer activity that Best Buy and its affiliates use to track exchanges and returns.”

The DPPA specifically prohibits Best Buy’s conduct and was instituted to protect consumers from abuses such as identify theft and stalking, which often result when information is unsecured and improperly stored. The class action alleges that Best Buy’s retention of data accessed on a driver’s license is not “use in the normal course of business” as described by the DPPA.

Top Settlements

What’s that old adage—if it sounds too good to be true… Power Balance LLC, the company that made Power Balance bracelets, has reportedly settled a consumer fraud class action lawsuit this week for $57.4 million and filed for federal bankruptcy protection. The details and amount of the Power Balance settlement remain to be confirmed, although it’s all over the Internet.

The company was sued over allegations of misleading advertising, advertising that allegedly claimed the hologram-embedded rubber bracelets enabled the wearers to “achieve their best,” a statement that begs the question—best what? Best outlandish claim? Possibly. Although the company claims there’s science to back up the statement. I have one word—and it’s “placebo.”

About time: Merck Vioxx settlement. There’s not much that’s funny about this. Merck, Sharp & Dohme has agreed to pay $950 million to resolve criminal charges and civil claims related to its promotion and marketing of the painkiller Vioxx (rofecoxib), the Justice Department announced. The FDA approved Vioxx for three indications in May 1999, but did not approve its use against rheumatoid arthritis until April 2002. In the interim, for nearly three years, Merck promoted Vioxx for rheumatoid arthritis, conduct for which it was admonished in an FDA warning letter issued in September 2001.

Merck is also entering into a civil settlement agreement under which it will pay $628,364,000 to resolve additional allegations regarding off-label marketing of Vioxx and false statements about the drug’s cardiovascular safety. Of the total civil settlement, $426,389,000 will be recovered by the United States, and the remaining share of $201,975,000 will be distributed to the participating Medicaid states. The settlement and plea conclude a long-running investigation of Merck’s promotion of Vioxx, which was withdrawn from the marketplace in September 2004.

The parallel civil settlement covers a broader range of allegedly illegal conduct by Merck. The settlement resolves allegations that Merck representatives made inaccurate, unsupported, or misleading statements about Vioxx’s cardiovascular safety in order to increase sales of the drug, resulting in payments by the federal government. It also resolves allegations that Merck made false statements to state Medicaid agencies about the cardiovascular safety of Vioxx, and that those agencies relied on Merck’s false claims in making payment decisions about the drug. Finally, like the criminal plea, the civil settlement also recovers damages for allegedly false claims caused by Merck’s unlawful promotion of Vioxx for rheumatoid arthritis.

Ok—That’s the week that was. Hope everyone had a wonderful Thanksgiving!