Settlement - Part 25

Week Adjourned: 1.18.13 – Clinique, Dell, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs

The week’s top class action news–lawsuits and settlements that made the buzz this week. Top stories include Estee Lauder’s Clinique line, Dell computers, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Speaking of wrinkles—it appears that Estée Lauder has hit one. The maker of Clinique cosmetic and skin care products is the latest to face a consumer fraud class action lawsuit over allegations of false and deceptive marketing practices.

In the Clinique false advertising lawsuit, entitled Margaret Ohayon et al. v. Estee Lauder Inc. et al., Case No. 2:33-av-00001, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, plaintiff Margaret Ohayon alleges Estee Lauder uses deceptive advertising tactics to promote its Clinique Repairwear, Youth Surge and Turnaround collection as having the ability to make wrinkles “disappear,” rebuild firming collagen, and produce other anti-aging benefits.

The lawsuit alleges that if, in fact, the Clinique products could “rebuild stores of natural collagen” or “deliver 63% of the visible wrinkle-reducing power of a laser procedure,” the products would be regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. Not to mention your girlfriends would be all over it—like you could keep the effects a secret—I don’t think so.

The Clinique consumer fraud class action lawsuit is brought on behalf of a proposed class of all consumers who have purchased at least one Clinique product from the Repairwear, Youth Surge or Turnaround collection in the US.

The lawsuit seeks compensatory, treble and punitive damages; restitution; injunctive relief and more for alleged breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, and violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and consumer fraud laws of various states.

Top Settlements

Heads up: Taxing Situation at Dell… An unfair business practices class action lawsuit filed in California against Dell Computer Corp, has reached a tentative settlement totaling $275 million in potential refunds.

The class action lawsuit revolves around the payment of California sales tax on Dell service contracts…read on…

The lawsuit, entitled Mohan, et al. v. Dell, Inc. et al. alleged the Defendants (Dell Inc. f/k/a/ Dell Computer Corp.; Dell Marketing LP (“DMLP”), on its own behalf and as successor by merger to Dell Catalog Sales LP (“DCSLP”); BancTec, Inc.; and Worldwide Tech Services, LLC f/k/a/ QualxServ LLC) improperly charged California use tax on purchases of certain Optional Service Contracts and remitted these taxes to the California State Board of Equalization (“SBE”).

The parties have reached two distinct settlement agreements to resolve the legal action: the Dell Settlement and the SBE Settlement. Under the terms of the respective settlements, which cover purchases made between April 8, 1999 and June 30, 2008, funding for the settlements will be provided by Dell and the California State Board of Equalization. The settlements followed a 2006 trial court’s decision, later affirmed on appeal by the California Court of Appeals in 2008, ruling that optional service contracts sold by Dell were not subject to California sales or use tax, as they did not constitute tangible personal property and were readily separable from the computer hardware with which they were sold.

Further, the terms of the two settlements stipulate that customers of Dell who purchased and paid tax on service contracts covering computer hardware during the class action period will be entitled to a full refund of all such taxes that they paid.

The settlement consists of more than $275 million in refunds. Notices will be mailed to customers informing them of the amounts of refunds available to them and instructions for the timely filing of claims. The Court will review the settlement agreements at the Final Hearing to be held in April, 2013.

Class members who are eligible to receive a refund under one or both of these settlement agreements must file a claim or claims to receive any refund(s). Each settlement agreement has different criteria for eligibility. For more information on eligibility and how to file a claim for the separate settlements, visit sctaxsett.com.

Welcome Home[Owner] News. This one’s a whopper…and some welcome news for home owners who suffered dodgy loan servicing and/or foreclosure at the hands of Morgan Stanley or Goldman Sachs. This week the Federal Reserve announced it has reached a settlement with the two financial institutions over alleged loan servicing and foreclosure abuses.

Under the terms of the settlement, reported by CNNMoney.com, Morgan Stanley will provide $97 million in direct cash payments to borrowers and $130 million worth of other relief, including loan modifications and the forgiveness of deficiency judgments. Goldman will pay $135 million to borrowers with a further $195 million provided as relief.

Here’s the skinny. The settlement provides for over 220,000 homeowners who held mortgages with the two banks’ former subsidiaries: Goldman’s Litton Loan Servicing and Morgan’s Saxon Mortgage Services, and subsequently faced foreclosure in 2009 and 2010. According to CNNMoney.com “over four million borrowers will split a total of $3.5 billion in cash compensation, with payments ranging from a few hundred dollars to potentially as much as $125,000 in a small percentage of cases. Those eligible are expected to be contacted by the end of March, regulators said.”

This settlement follows the $8.5 billion agreement announced last week by the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency with 10 other banks over foreclosure issues.

Goldman Sachs was ordered to review its subsidiary’s foreclosure practices in September 2011, as was Morgan Stanley in April 2012. Those reviews were not initiated and will now be scrapped as a result of this settlement deal.

Well this news is worth a minor celebration—on top of the fact that it’s Friday. So—see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 1.11.13 – Kia, AT&T Mobility, Chase Bank

This week, our wrap of top class action lawsuits and settlements is a consumer fraud hat trick! Read on for what’s been hot this week in class action news: Kia Sorento, AT&T Mobility, Chase Bank Overdraft Fees. All for the week ending January 11, 2013.

FYI…we’re going for a Consumer Fraud hat trick this week…

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Kia Sorento #EpicFail? Heads up anyone out there who owns a Kia Sorento 2002-2009 model…Kia Motors is facing a consumer fraud class action lawsuit over allegations that these Sorento models are prone to catastrophic engine failure. That sounds rather alarming.

The Kia Sorento lawsuit, entitled Robinson et al v. Kia Motors America Inc. et al., Case No. 13-cv-00006 U.S. district Court for the District of New Jersey, claims that Kia Motors knowingly concealed a manufacturing defect in the crank sprocket of its 2002-2009 Sorento models. This alleged engine defect can lead to a catastrophic chain of events beginning with severe heat buildup, the release of debris, and subsequent loss of steering control, engine failure and the potential for a hazardous accident, the plaintiffs allege. (And you thought sprockets were just something George Jetson worried about…)

“Not only did Kia actively conceal the material fact that this particular component is defectively designed (and requires costly repairs to fix), but it also did not reveal that the existence of this defect would diminish the intrinsic resale value of the vehicle,” the Kia lawsuit states.

Other allegations include Kia having knowledge of the engine defect for several years, as evidenced by numerous online complaints. However, it allegedly chose to withhold this information from consumers while making numerous statements about the quality and reliability of the Sorento. As a result of Kia’s “scheme of false and misleading advertising and marketing” thousands of people have purchased a Sorento, without knowledge of the defect, in preference to another vehicle without the alleged defect. Getting the picture?

The lawsuit also alleges that Kia Sorento owners who sought repairs for their vehicles while under warranty received only temporary repair of damaged parts, which may have included using similarly defective parts. Not good.

Additionally, the plaintiffs claim that Kia profits from the alleged Sorento engine defect by performing unnecessary parts replacements, computer reprogramming and software updates, despite knowing the true cause of the problem.

This lawsuit seeks to represent a nationwide class of consumers that purchased or leased the first generation Sorento. Ok.

Top Settlements

AT&T Mobility Customers May Get Relief From 7-Year Itch. A settlement has been reached in the consumer fraud class action lawsuit pending against AT&T Mobility LLC. The lawsuit claims that AT&T improperly charged fees to certain wireless customers—over a seven-year class period. That’s alotta fees—and sadly, seems to be a trend these days.

So—if you were assessed Universal Service Charges or similar charges under state or other laws (collectively “USC”) on data pay-per-use plans, visual voicemail services, customer custom packaging plans, international calls outside the United States or voicemail services only (“Covered Services”) by AT&T Mobility LLC (“AT&T Mobility”) on bills issued from January 1, 2004 up to and including December 31, 2010, you might be eligible to receive benefits from a class action settlement.

We must stress, that the AT&T Mobility settlement has to receive final approval. If approved, it will resolve the lawsuit entitled, MBA Surety Agency, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, Case No. 1222-CC09746, concerning AT&T Mobility assessment of USC on the Covered Services. AT&T Mobility will contribute $152,634,430.00 (“Settlement Proceeds”) which will be payable in the form of credits and cash payments to the eligible Settlement Class members after deductions for attorneys’ fees etc. The final Fairness Hearing is scheduled for February 20, 2013. Watch this space—we’ll keep you posted.

And for the Hat Trick…after all, three’s a charm! A $110 million settlement that just received final court approval, ending an overdraft fees class action lawsuit against Chase Bank. Yes—this is a form of consumer fraud, because “it ain’t on the level.”

The Chase Bank overdraft fee settlement is the latest to be reached in the massive class action lawsuit involving over 30 banks who are alleged to have manipulated customers’ transactions in such a way as to maximize overdraft fees. What’s on the level about those business practices?

The allegations also state that rather than declining transactions on an account that has insufficient funds to cover a purchase, Chase Bank authorized the transactions and then processed them in highest to lowest dollar order, which effectively increased the number of overdraft fees charged. Oh—don’t get me started!

As part of the settlement agreement, Chase will, for a period of at least two years, cease charging overdraft fees on individual debit card transactions of $5.00 or less. No comment.

Class members include anyone who (A) held a Chase, Bank One, or Bank of New York consumer deposit account accessible with a Chase debit card anytime between January 1, 2003 and March 29, 2010; and (B) were charged one or more overdraft fees as a result of Chase’s practice of posting debit card transactions from highest to lower dollar amount.

That’s it for this week. Off to you know where—see you there!

Week Adjourned: 1.4.13 – Dole Food, Google, Viacom, Chase Bank Fees

The weekly wrap of top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top stories for the week ending January 4, 2013 include Dole Food, Google Privacy, Viacom Privacy, and Chase Bank Overdraft Fees.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Dole Delivering Nutrition But Not Compensation? New year, old tricks…This time it’s Dole Food Company—they’re facing a wage and hour class action lawsuit over allegations it fails to pay its employees for the time they spend dressing and undressing in sanitary clothing, which they must wear during work. According to the Dole class action lawsuit, “The time that Dole requires its employees to work without compensation on a daily basis is substantial.”

The Dole lawsuit alleges specifically that dressing in protective gear and sanitizing hands and shoe soles are food safety practices that workers are required to use to comply with Dole’s policies. “All of these activities are performed for the benefit of Dole,” the lawsuit states.

Lead plaintiff, Jose Luis Hernandez, who worked in Dole’s Soledad plant, alleges Dole also routinely violated lunch and rest break requirements because employees were required to “don and doff” their gear, and that time shouldn’t be considered part of the employees’ break time. “Dole knew or should have known that its policies and practices were expressly contrary to California law and unfair,” the lawsuit states. Go get’em!

Heads Up! Got Kids On The Internet? Ok. Stupid question. Six internet privacy class action lawsuits have been filed against Google Inc. and Viacom Inc. over allegations the companies illegally track the online activities of children under 13. These actions, according to the Google and Viacom privacy lawsuits, violate both the federal Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) and the federal Wiretap Act.

Specifically, the lawsuits claim that Viacom and Google placed cookies on users’ computers enabling the companies to unlawfully track the Internet and video-viewing activities of minors who visited Viacom-owned sites like Nick.com and NickJr.com. The information was used to target advertising, the lawsuits allege.

The cookies allegedly remained on computers even after the children had informed Viacom through the sign-up process that they were under 13.

“The plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, suffered invasions of privacy in direct violation of federal law when Viacom and Google developed, implemented and profited from cookies designed to track the Internet communications and video viewing habits of minor children under the age of 13,” the lawsuits state.

The plaintiffs in all six class action lawsuits are seeking to certify a nationwide class of children under 13 who had cookies placed their computers by Google and Viacom for the purposes of tracking their viewing habits, without the plaintiffs’ knowledge. Plaintiffs are also proposing a subclass of children who engaged with video materials that Viacom knowingly allowed Google to track through a specialized cookie.

Top Settlements

Chase Maxed Out Its Good Credit…or so it seems, and will have to pony up a $110 million—the amount that recently received final court approval—as settlement of a Chase overdraft fees class action lawsuit.

The settlement is the latest settlement to be reached in the massive class action lawsuit involving over 30 banks who are alleged to have manipulated customers transactions in such a way as to maximize overdraft fees.

As part of the settlement agreement, Chase will, for a period of at least two years, cease charging overdraft fees on individual debit card transactions of $5.00 or less.

Ho Ho Ho, It’s to the Bar I go. See you there!

Week Adjourned: 12.21.12 – Green Giant, Hurricane Sandy, Dillard’s Stores

The weekly wrap of top class action lawsuit and settlement news for the week ending December 21 2012. Top stories include Green Giant, Hurricane Sandy insurance claims and Dillard’s department stores.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Ho-Ho-Ho are Those GMO’s? Nothing fresh about this old chestnut. Yet another in the rash of false labeling and misleading advertising consumer fraud class action lawsuits was filed this week against General Mills’ alleging its Green Giant 100% Natural Valley Fresh Steamers frozen vegetables are not 100% natural as claimed on the product labeling.

Ok. Here’s the dope. Filed by Elizabeh Cox, the Cox v. General Mills Inc., Case No. 12-cv-06377, consumer fraud lawsuit alleges the Valley Fresh Steamers contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the form of corn, soy, corn derivatives and soy derivatives, thereby making the product labeling false or misleading.

In the Green Giant Class lawsuit, Cox claims she bought several of Green Giant 100% Natural Valley Fresh Steamers frozen vegetables in September, including Green Giant 100% Natural Valley Fresh Steamers Roasted Red Potatoes, Green Beans & Rosemary Butter Sauce and Green Giant 100% Natural Valley Fresh Steamers Broccoli, Carrots, Cauliflower & Cheese Sauce. Cox is claiming damages and harm which resulted from the misleading labeling because the product is not what is advertised. Specifically, the lawsuit states, “The harmful impact upon members of the general public who purchased and used the product outweighs any reasons or justifications by defendant for the deceptive labeling and advertising practices employed to sell the product that misleadingly claims to be ‘100% Natural.’”

The Green Giant class action lawsuit is brought on behalf of anyone who purchased Green Giant Valley Fresh Steamers containing corn or soy ingredients from October 22, 2008 through the present. Sign me up!

A Basement is a Basement is a….? You knew it had to happen. And it likely won’t be the only one. This week, a bad faith insurance class action lawsuit was filed against nine insurance companies, including Fidelity, Travelers and State Farm Insurance, over the definition of a basement related to insurance claims filed for damages caused by Hurricane Irene in 2011 and superstorm Sandy in late October. The lawsuit includes claims for Sandy in an effort to avoid improper insurance claim denials similar to those from Irene. Unbelievable.

At the heart of the Hurricane Sandy basement lawsuit is the issue of whether or not ground-floor units have been properly classified as basement units. Here we go. According to the lawsuit, the SFIP defines a basement as “any area of the building, including any sunken room or sunken portion of a room, having its floor below ground level (subgrade) on all sides.” The SFIP offers limited coverage for damages in basements, according to the lawsuit. Patrick Donnelly, from Jersey City, had flood insurance through WYO with New Jersey Re-Insurance Company and had a claim denied after Hurricane Irene because his ground floor was identified as a basement.

Part of the problem is that homeowners have a limited understanding of what a basement is under the terms of their policy. So, you might think you know your ground floor apartment is not basement—or vice-versa—but you don’t. Got that?

No? Well, you’re not alone. The lawsuit will represent everyone in New Jersey insured by the companies named in the lawsuit. Further, the lawsuit contains sub-classes specifically focused on Jersey City and Hoboken property and business owners.

Top Settlements

Dillard’s Disability Woes End in Settlement. Finally—some good news to end the year on! Well almost end the year on. A $2 million settlement has been reached in an employment class action lawsuit pending against department store chain Dillard’s Inc. The Dillard’s class action lawsuit contends that the retailer is in violation of federal disability laws by requiring workers seeking sick leave to disclose private medical conditions.

Dillards is under investigation by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for firing a worker in El Centro in Southern California’s Imperial Count. The worker alleged she was fired in 2006 after refusing to reveal her exact medical problems to a manager who would not accept her doctor’s note when she requested sick leave.

According to a report in the Los Angeles Times, the EEOC alleges that in 2005 Dillard’s implemented a nationwide policy requiring those asking for excused absences for illness to not only give a doctor’s note but also disclose the medical condition they were being treated for. This affected thousands of workers, the EEOC claims, and is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which is meant to protect workers from being forced to disclose private medical information.

The EEOC has said it also investigated complaints that Dillard’s fired workers for taking more sick leave than the maximum number of days allowed by the retailer, which also violates federal disability discrimination laws.

As part of the settlement, Dillard’s has also agreed to hire a consultant to review and revise its employment policy.

I’ll drink to that! And on that note-Happy Holidays!

Week Adjourned: 11.30.12 – Toys R Us, Generic Lipitor, Lucky Brand Jeans

Ploys R Us? Toy retail giant Toys R Us, Inc, got hit with a potential consumer fraud class action lawsuit by an angry customer who feels he was duped over the Thanksgiving weekend. Essentially, the lawsuit alleges engaged in a Toys R Us bait-and-switch scheme that lured in online shoppers with offers of valuable free gifts that turned out be small or non-existent.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Ploys R Us? Toy retail giant Toys R Us, Inc, got hit with a potential consumer fraud class action lawsuit by an angry customer who feels he was duped over the Thanksgiving weekend. Essentially, the lawsuit alleges engaged in a Toys R Us bait-and-switch scheme that lured in online shoppers with offers of valuable free gifts that turned out be small or non-existent.

Naughty, naughty!

The backstory: William Probert, (who filed the lawsuit), claims he was lured to the Toys R Us website to purchase four Lego building sets, worth $62 and $112 each, based on an ad promising he would receive $15 Lego building set as a free gift with purchase. Instead, Probert was offered a $5 Christmas tree figurine and a $5 magnet.

The short version on the allegations: that Toys R Us used misleading sales tactics which included promising customers free gifts like a $15 Barbie clothing outfit when they purchased a $75 Barbie Doll. However, most shoppers received much cheaper incentive gifts because the company either stocked an “exceedingly limited” number of the advertised free gifts or had no intention of giving expensive gifts.

Specifically, the Toys R Us lawsuit states, “Under this business model, consumers almost always receive a ‘free gift’ of substantially lesser value than what was advertised and which served as the basis of the bargain, or no ‘free gift’ whatsoever.” And, “This business practice, thus, constitutes a modern ‘bait and switch’ scheme. Toys R Us does not honor its promises to provide the promised free gift, and indeed never intended to honor its promises.”

Statin Trouble. Heads up anyone taking Atorvastatin (generic Lipitor) manufactured and sold by Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals. A consumer fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey on behalf of a class of all purchasers of certain bottles of Atorvastatin (generic Lipitor) that were manufactured and sold by Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Read more on the generic Lipitor class action lawsuit here.)

In case you missed it—which was easily done by the way—the pharmaceutical company recently conducted a limited, voluntary recall of Atorvastatin calcium tablets, (generic Lipitor). The retail-only recall concerns its 10mg, 20mg and 40mg dosage strengths, packaged in 90’s and 500 count bottles and only with respect to certain select lot numbers. Ranbaxy admitted that the product contained glass particles.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants manufactured and sold a dangerous and defective product, violated consumer fraud laws, and otherwise acted improperly with respect to the tainted Atorvastatin. For example, when Ranbaxy learned that their product was tainted, Ranbaxy conducted a recall but it was only at the retail level. The recall by Ranbaxy did not include a notice to consumers who purchased the tainted product as to what they should do with the tainted product or what they should do if they ingested it. The limited recall also did not include a notice to consumers or retail pharmacies about how the consumers could obtain a refund of the money paid for the product. In fact, Ranbaxy has not offered a refund to consumers.

The class action seeks a total product recall, with notice to consumers about the tainted product. The lawsuit also seeks a refund of the money paid for the product. Hey Ho!

Top Settlements

Lucky Brand Jeans—Not So Lucky? Possibly not. A federal judge has preliminarily approved a $9.9 million settlement of a class action lawsuit filed against Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. and its marketing subcontractors. The Lucky Brand lawsuit alleged the clothing company was in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) because it sent unsolicited text spam as part of a 2008 back-to-school promotion.

The lawsuit, entitled Robles v. Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-4846, was filed by Juvenal Robles in October 2010, who represents an estimated 216,000 class members, all of whom may be eligible to receive up to $100 per claimant if the settlement receives final court approval.

The lawsuit claimed that Lucky Brand sent unsolicited spam texts to thousands of customers’ cellphones. Those messages offered $25 off Lucky jeans or offering store location services to consumers that responded with their ZIP codes.

According to the lawsuit, the Federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) prohibits companies from contacting people on their mobile phones by using an “automatic telephone dialing system” or using “an artificial or prerecorded voice” without their prior express consent. Some courts have even applied the TCPA to unsolicited text messages, or “text spam.”

Eligible class members include consumers that received the Lucky Brand text spam between August 24 and September 15, 2008. Further details on the preliminary settlement have not been made public.

And on that note—I’ll see you at the bar. Have a great weekend!

Week Adjourned: 11.9.12 – Hyundai, Kia, 7Up, MoneyGram

The weekly wrap of top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending November 9, 2012. Top lawsuits include Hyundai/Kia Motors, Snapple’s 7Up soft drink and MoneyGram scams.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Less is More: Less truth + Less miles per gallon than advertised = More fraud. At least that’s the math on the consumer fraud class-action lawsuit filed against Hyundai Motor America, Kia Motors America and Kia Motor Company of Korea. The class action was filed after regulators announced the companies overstated the fuel economy for many vehicles they sold in the United States. Now there’s a surprise.

Hyundai Motor Corporation admitted it overstated the fuel-economy estimates after independent tests by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) showed a discrepancy. Busted!

The Hyundai/Kia fuel economy class action lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Central California, seeks to represent all consumers who own or lease Hyundai and Kia vehicles whose EPA fuel economy ratings were less than the fuel economy rating produced by the applicable federal test in that model’s year.

According to published reports, Hyundai will lower fuel-consumption estimates on most Hyundai and Kia models produced in 2012 and 2013. It will reportedly lower estimates by as much as five miles-per-gallon for its Kia Soul Eco, and by one or two miles-per-gallon for most other models.

The automaker apologized to consumers, according to published reports, and blamed the issue on what the South Korean company called “procedural errors” in its testing, which was done by a Korean lab.

The lawsuit was filed for a Seattle woman who purchased a 2012 Hyundai Accent; an Arizona man who purchased a Hyundai Genesis sedan; an Arizona woman who purchased a Hyundai Genesis sedan; and an Illinois man who purchased a 2012 Kia Sorento, all relying on the fuel-economy numbers provided by the car manufacturer.

The lawsuit contends that Hyundai, owned by Hyundai Motor Company of Korea (KSE:005380.KS), and Kia Motors America, owned jointly by Hyundai Motor Company and Kia Motor Company of Korea (KSE:000270.KS), violated California’s Unfair Competition Law, its false advertising law and its consumer legal remedy act. The lawsuit also claims that Hyundai committed a breach of express warranty, and committed fraud and negligent misrepresentation under California Common Law, among other violations.

What’s Up 7UP? A consumer fraud class action lawsuit was filed against Dr Pepper Snapple Group Inc., the maker of 7UP, over allegations the company misleads consumers about the health benefits of an antioxidant used in some varieties of some of the 7UP soft drinks. Antioxidants in soft drinks? What time did you say the tooth fairy was coming?

According to report by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, an advocacy group for food safety and nutrition, Dr Pepper Snapple Group’s advertising and packaging suggest that the 7Up beverages contain antioxidants from blackberries, cherries, cranberries, pomegranates and raspberries, rather than added Vitamin E.

According to the National Cancer Institute, antioxidants help protect cells from damage caused by free radicals, which are unstable molecules associated with cancer.

Thursday’s lawsuit, entitled Green v. Dr Pepper Snapple Group Inc., was filed US District Court, Central District of California, No.12-09567. It seeks class-action status on behalf of purchasers nationwide of the products, a variety of financial damages, and a halt to the alleged misleading advertising.

David Green, a resident of Sherman Oaks, California, and the named plaintiff in the class action lawsuit, alleges he would not have bought the soft drinks had he known their antioxidants did not come from fruit.

7UP Cherry Antioxidant was launched in 2009, and is also available as a diet drink. Other products include 7UP Mixed Berry Antioxidant and Diet 7UP Mixed Berry Antioxidant.

Top Settlements

MoneyGram Scam Busted. This is quite incredible. The money transfer company MoneyGram has agreed to forfeit $100 million and has admitted to wire fraud settling one of the biggest money laundering cases ever brought by the Justice Department.

According to documents filed on Friday, November 9, 2012, MoneyGram admitted that it failed to maintain an effective anti-money laundering program. The scams involved MoneyGram agents tricking customers into wiring money to the agents, who posed as relatives promising large cash prizes. MoneyGram reportedly knew about this, and the victims of the fraud–numbering in the thousands–complained to MoneyGram. However, the company took no action to stop it, instead they processed the transactions for those agents.

Customers reported fraud that added up to at least $100 million, the Justice Department said, and the money from the settlement will be used to compensate the victims. I should hope so.

And on that note- I’ll see you at the bar—time for some real antioxidants! Have a great weekend!

Week Adjourned: 11.2.12 – OTC Medicine, Bayer Aspirin, Burger King

This week’s wrap of top class action lawsuit news includes OTC Medicine expiration dates, Bayer Aspirin, and Burger King discrimination–the top class actions for the week ending November 2, 2012.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

What’s in an Expiration Date? According to three separate consumer fraud class action lawsuits filed this week, a whole lot of questionable motivation.

Filed against Pfizer (which makes Advil), Bayer (which makes Bayer aspirin) and Johnson & Johnson (which makes Tylenol Cold Multi-Symptom medications), the drug expiration date lawsuits allege the drug makers use “unconscionable, unfair, deceptive, unethical and illegal” means to promote the sales of their products. Specifically, the lawsuits claim that the these means involve the utilization of expiration dates to get consumers to throw away products that have passed their expiration dates, even though the companies know “that if stored properly these medications can and do remain chemically stable, safe and effective long after those dates.”

According to the consumer fraud lawsuits, studies by the Food and Drug Administration, Harvard Medical School, and Johns Hopkins University have found 90% of more than 100 prescription and over-the-counter drugs were fine and could be used for as much as 15 years after their expiration dates: this excludes certain drugs like tetracycline, nitroglycerin, insulin, and liquid antibiotics.

The lawsuit claims that the purpose of the expiration dates is “[T]o increase defendants’ sales and profits because consumers have to purchase replacement medications for those they have thrown out.” The class is seeking actual and punitive damages for consumers that purchased products from Pfizer, Bayer and Johnson & Johnson.

Top Settlements

And Speaking of Drug Marketing… A $15 million settlement has been reached in the consumer fraud class action against Bayer regarding allegations of false advertising around certain combination aspirin products that were sold without FDA approval.

The lawsuit, entitled In re: Bayer Corp. Combination Aspirin Products Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation, alleges Bayer violated state consumer fraud and deceptive business practices acts, express and implied warranty statutes, and unjust enrichment laws in connection with the sale and marketing of Bayer Women’s Low-Dose Aspirin plus Calcium and Bayer Aspirin with Heart Advantage.

If you purchased Bayer® Women’s Low Dose Aspirin + Calcium or Bayer® Aspirin with Heart Advantage, you may be a member of the Bayer Heart Advantage Class or the Bayer Women’s Class (collectively referred to as the “Settlement Classes”) – and thus eligible to receive money from the settlement – depending on (1) which Combination Aspirin Product you purchased, (2) whether you purchased it for personal, family or household uses, and (3) when it was purchased. Each Settlement Class only includes purchases of specific Combination Aspirin Products during specific periods of time.

If you purchased one or more of the Combination Aspirin Products for personal, family or household uses then you are eligible to participate in one or both of the Settlement Classes described in this Notice, provided that your purchase occurred during the time periods specified for each Settlement Class.

Class Members of the Bayer combination aspirin class action settlement include US consumers who purchased one or more of the following combination aspirin products for personal, family or household use during the following time period:

Bayer Aspirin with Heart Advantage Settlement Class: Purchase Date: January 1, 2008 to July 20, 2012

Bayer Women’s Low-Dose Aspirin plus Calcium Settlement Class: Purchase Date: January 1, 2000 to July 20, 2012

To learn more about making a claim and to download forms go to the Bayer Combination Aspirin Class Action Lawsuit Settlement at BayerCombinationAspirinSettlement.com.

Convenience Food not so Convenient… A proposed settlement has been reached in a discrimination class action lawsuit pending against Burger King. The lawsuit, brought by individuals who use wheelchairs and scooters for mobility, allege that they encountered access problems at certain California Burger King leased restaurants.

Specifically, the Burger King class action lawsuit alleges individuals who use wheelchairs and scooters for mobility have been subjected to discrimination at the restaurants that allegedly contain unlawful architectural barriers to access. The Burger King ADA lawsuit sought to remove the alleged barriers, and monetary damages for Class Members denied access to restaurants on or after October 16, 2006.

The proposed settlement terms includes a total of $19 million for monetary relief, which will provide an estimated average recovery per class member of over $8,200, after deductions for attorney’s fees and costs.

Burger King Corporation and the restaurant operators deny they did anything wrong. The parties have reached a settlement of this case. It is now up to the Court approve the proposed settlement.

To find out more and to obtain claim forms for the Burger King wheelchair class action, call 1-888-569-9477.

And on that note—I’ll see you at the bar. Have a great weekend!

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: 9.7.12 – Olive Garden, Red Lobster, Chase, eBooks

An unpaid overtime class action lawsuit has been filed against all restaurant chains owned by Darden Restaurants, including The Capital Grille, Longhorn Steakhouse, Olive Garden and Red Lobster. Read more in our weekly wrap of top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week of September 7, 2012.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

We want you to work but we don’t want to pay you… sound familiar? An unpaid overtime class action lawsuit has been filed against all restaurant chains owned by Darden Restaurants, including The Capital Grille, Longhorn Steakhouse, Olive Garden and Red Lobster.

The Darden Restaurants lawsuit was filed on behalf of Amanda Mathis, a Florida resident and former server at several Longhorn Steakhouse locations, and James Hamilton, a Virginia resident and former Olive Garden server in Georgia. In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs allege that servers such as themselves were paid less than the minimum wage and were not compensated for time they were required to work off the clock.

The overtime pay lawsuit contends that Darden violated the Fair labor Standards Act by paying many of its servers below the applicable minimum wage, which can be as low as $2.13 an hour for tipped work and $7.25 an hour for non-tipped work. It also alleges that servers were required to work off the clock at the beginning and end of their shifts. Isn’t that called “volunteering”?

The proposed class seeks to represent current and former servers employed between August 2009 and the present. Darden is considered the world’s largest full-service restaurant group, with almost 170,000 employees.

Top Settlements

Chase chastised to the tune of $100 million…in settlement monies for improper loan and APR Rates. Preliminary court approval was granted this week, in a credit card class action lawsuit brought against Chase Bank over allegations that its loan and APR rates were increased improperly.

Specifically, the lawsuit, brought by Chase credit cardholders, claimed those customers accepted promotional loan offers whereby the loan was subject to a fixed interest rate (APR) until the loan balance was paid off in full. In November 2008 and June 2009, Chase sent some of these cardholders a “Change in Terms” notice, raising their minimum monthly payment from 2% to 5% of their outstanding account balance and, in some cases, applying a $10 monthly fee to their account.

Who Is Included in the Chase Credit Card Class Action?

The “class” for this lawsuit includes all persons or entities in the United States who entered into a loan agreement with Chase, whereby Chase promised a fixed APR until the loan balance was paid in full, and (i) whose minimum monthly payment was increased by Chase to 5% of the outstanding balance, or (ii) who were notified by Chase of a minimum payment increase and subsequently closed their account or agreed to an alternative change in terms offered by Chase.

How Will Chase Credit Card Class Action Settlement Payments Be Determined?

If the Settlement becomes effective, Class Members will be sent a settlement check by the Settlement Administrator in the amount of their individual share of the Settlement Fund available for distribution. Each Class Member’s share will be comprised of: (i) a $25.00 base payment; plus (ii) for most, but not all, Class Members, an additional payment intended to give the most compensation to those Class Members most affected by the Change in Terms, taking into account, among other things, the amount of the initial transaction fees paid for their fixed rate promotional loans (if there is no record of a transaction fee, an average transaction fee will be used), how much of the promotional balances were paid back before the Change in Terms occurred, how long the promotional loans were in the Class Member’s account before the Change in Terms, and whether and when the promotional balances were restored to their original terms after the Change in Terms were announced. A limited number of persons were notified of the change in terms but, for example, did not have balances at the time the change in terms took effect, and will not receive an additional payment (these Class Members will still receive the $25.00 base payment).

For more information, visit ChaseMinPaymentLawsuit.com.

Refunds on eBooks? Are you in line for some dosh? Check it out. A $69 million settlement has been reached in a lawsuit brought by US states and territories against Hachette, HarperCollins and Simon & Schuster over ebook pricing. According to Publishers Weekly, if the agreement for the eBook pricing lawsuit receives court approval, Hachette will pay $31,711,425, HarperCollins will pay $19,575,246, and Simon & Schuster will pay $17,752,480. The consumer fraud agreement includes fees and other costs to be paid by the publishers.

The eBook class action lawsuit centered around agreements made between publishers and Apple to move away from the industry’s traditional wholesale-retail model, in which retailers set the price of ebooks, to an agency model, in which the ebook stores served as agents that earned a percentage of each sale, allowing publishers to decide how much their ebooks would cost. Publishers who wanted to sell with Apple moved to a similar model with Amazon.

The settlement translates, at least to consumers, into refunds for ebooks purchased between April 1, 2010, and May 21, 2012, that had been priced according to the agency model.

According to report in the LA Times publishers will $1.32 for each bestselling title purchased by a consumers, 32 cents for books that were less than a year old but not bestsellers, and 25 cents for older e-books.

Refunds will appear in e-book buyers’ online accounts on iTunes, Amazon and Barnes & Noble. Readers who purchased e-books through Google or Sony’s storefronts will receive a check, and others can opt to. They can also opt not to receive any rebate at all.

That’s it for this week…See you—well, you know where.

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!