Week Adjourned - Part 14

Week Adjourned: 6.26.15 – NFL Sunday, Beck’s Beer, Colonoscopy Med Mal

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Fans of Sunday Night Football are making an end run at the NFL and DirecTV, having filed an antitrust class action lawsuit, over the bundling of games in the NFL Sunday Ticket package. Specifically, the lawsuit claims that Sunday Ticket subscribers should not be forced to pay several hundred dollars for the NFL’s entire spectrum of out-of-market games just so they can follow one team or see an individual game.

Filed in California by Thomas Abrahamian, the NFL Sunday lawsuit states: “The league and DirecTV offer NFL Sunday Ticket only as all-or-nothing….Purchasers of NFL Sunday Ticket must buy all out-of-market games for all teams even if they are only interested in watching the games of a particular team. Likewise, consumers must buy the complete season of games and may not purchase individual games.”

“A Cleveland Browns fan living in California cannot watch the Browns play, except occasional games on network television, unless he purchases the entire package of League games from NFL Sunday Ticket,” according to the complaint. The lawsuit is Case 2:15-cv-04606-BRO-JEM.

Top Settlements

I’ll Drink to That! A settlement has been reached in a consumer fraud class action lawsuit pending against Beck’s Beer. The lawsuit alleges that the beer is produced in St. Louis and brewed with water from Missouri, not imported from Germany, as customers may have been led to believe.

Anheuser-Busch, the makers of Beck’s, ‘tricked’ consumers into thinking Beck’s was a German beer, according to the lawsuit. The beer used to be brewed in Germany by its German owners until 2002 when it was sold to Belgium’s Interbrew, which then merged with Brazil’s AmBev, to become InBev, which in turn acquired Anheuser-Busch. Production of Beck’s moved to St. Louis in 2012, according to the lawsuit.

According to the Beck’s settlement terms, eligible class members are entitled to a refund of up to $50. Settlement class members include customers who purchased Beck’s beer, including Beck’s Dark and Beck’s Light, since May 2011. The settlement has yet to receive final approval but if approved, class members can fill out an online form to claim a refund. Beck’s drinkers can get 10 cents back for every individual bottle purchased; 50 cents for a six-pack or $1.75 per 20-pack.

Refunds will be capped at $50 for claims backed by a valid proof of purchase. Consumers who didn’t keep receipts are entitled to no more than $12. Full terms will be made public upon final approval of the settlement.

Additionally, under the settlement terms, Anheuser-Busch agreed to make labeling adjustments. A statement on the bottle saying it’s made in the USA will become more visible. The green boxes in which the bottles are packaged will also say the beer is made in the USA. So much for “who reads the packaging anyway?”

Patient Privates Undergo “Review” During Colonoscopy… You can’t make this stuff up! An unidentified patient in Virginia has been awarded $500,000 by a jury hearing his medical malpractice lawsuit which claims his anesthesiologist made defamatory comments while he was under sedation for a colonoscopy. The award includes $200,000 in punitive damages.

The unidentified plaintiff, referred to as DB, had left his smart phone on record so he could ensure he got his doctor’s post-surgical instructions, according to the Washington Post. (What ever happened to the patient consult?) However, during the procedure his trousers were placed under him, (Why?) which resulted in the inadvertent recording, court papers indicate.

When DB listened to the recording on his way home from the surgery, he discovered Dr. Tiffany Ingham mocking and disparaging him. Among the comments was a referral to a rash on the plaintiff’s penis, which Ingham incorrectly suggested indicated syphilis and tuberculosis. Nice.

The jury awarded $50,000 in compensatory damages for defamation for the doctor’s remarks about each of these diseases, and another $200,000 for overall medical malpractice. Ingham also allegedly said she was going to note in the man’s chart that he had hemorrhoids, which he didn’t.

DB also sued a gastroenterologist, Soloman Shah, who, while present for the procedure, did not directly participate in most of the commentary by Ingham. Smart…That portion of the case was dismissed.

And it’s off to the rodeo!

That’s a wrap folks…See you at the Bar!

Week Adjourned: 6.19.15 – Shutterfly, Michael Kors, Hip Replacement

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Shutterfly may have its wings clipped. The company that developed the facial recognition software has been hit with a putative class action lawsuit over alleged privacy violations—actually—violations of Illinois state’s Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Filed by Illinois resident Brian Norberg, the Shutterfly complaint asserts that online image publisher Shutterfly and its subsidiary ThisLife LLC collect facial recognition data from user-uploaded photos without first notifying individuals and receiving their written consent, and by failing to inform them how long the information will be stored and how it will be used.

“Specifically, defendants have created, collected and stored millions of ‘face templates’ (or ‘face prints’)—” highly detailed geometric maps of the face—” from millions of individuals, many thousands of whom are non-Shutterfly users residing in the state of Illinois,” the complaint states.

“Defendants in this case made no effort whatsoever to obtain consent from unwitting third parties when they introduced their facial recognition technology,” the complaint state. “Not only do defendants’ actions fly in the face of FCC guidelines, they also violate the privacy rights of Illinois residents.”

Notably, Illinois law also prohibits companies that collect biometric data from selling it to third parties.

Heads up—Norberg is seeking $5,000 for each intentional and reckless violation, and $1,000 for each violation resulting from defendants’ negligence. Go get’em!

The case is Brian Norberg v. Shutterfly Inc. et al., case number 1:15-cv-05351, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Top Settlements

Settlement in the bag…to the tune of $4.88 million. That’s the number reached in a preliminary settlement between Michael Kors Holdings Ltd and plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit alleging the company engages in consumer fraud.

Ok—you’ve read this song sheet before. The specific allegations are that Michael Kors represents on the price tags of its Kors Outlet Products artificial “suggested retail prices” that do not represent a bona fide price at which the designer formerly sold the products. The tags also offer a price termed “our price,” which represents a steep discount off the false original price.

But the [prices] used by Michael Kors … were a sham. In fact, Michael Kors manufactures certain goods for exclusive sale at its Kors Outlets, which means that such items were never sold, or even intended to be sold at the … price listed on their labels,” the complaint states.

Under the terms of the preliminary Kors settlement Michael Kors will replace “MSRP” with “Value” on its price tags and display signage explaining that term, or stop using reference prices for products made exclusively for its outlets.

If approved, the settlement will include shoppers who bought products from Michael Kors outlets in the four years ending July 25, 2014.

The case is Gattinella v. Michael Kors (USA) Inc et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 14-05731.

Here’s one for the record books… A jury hearing the first product liability lawsuit against Wright Profemur hip replacement systems has awarded the plaintiff $4.5 million in damages. Brought by Alan Warner, the lawsuit is the first of several hundred to go to trial with allegations that the hip replacement Warner received failed after just three years: the average life span of the system is between 15 and 20 years.

There are over 1,200 similar defect product lawsuits pending against Wright Profemur hip replacement alleging the plaintiffs suffered health problems when the modular femoral neck stem broke.

Warner’s trial lasted two weeks and is the first case to go to court. It is not part of the federal MDL.

Hokee Dokee—That’s a wrap folks…See you at the Bar!

Week Adjourned: 6.5.15 – Hep C Drug Denial, Santa Barbara Spill, Phoenix Life

Top Class Action Lawsuits

How ill is ill enough? And why should the insurer get to decide instead of the physician? These are the issues at the heart of a denied insurance claim lawsuit filed against Blue Cross. The lawsuit alleges the insurer denies its policy holders access to a newly approved and expensive new hepatitis C drug made by Gilead Sciences.

According to the hepatitis C drug lawsuit, the medical insurer has refused its contractual duty to provide coverage for medically necessary treatments for a client who has had hepatitis C for 10 year, and others similarly situated. According to the lawsuit, lead plaintiff Janie Kondell was denied coverage because her “liver had not sufficiently deteriorated.”

“In other words, defendant decided that Ms. Kondell hadn’t suffered enough, and her liver hadn’t been damaged enough, by a disease that causes irreparable harm and death, for which a cure is finally available,” the lawsuit states.

The US Food and Drug Administration approved the treatment, Harvoni, in October 2014. According to the complaint, the drug has a 95-99 percent cure rate. The once-daily pill can cost from $64,000 for an eight-week treatment to $99,000 for a 12-week treatment, and has few side effects.

According to the complaint, prior to approval of Harvoni, the existing treatment for Hep C, a contagious, chronic, potentially fatal condition resulting in liver damage, cirrhosis, infections, cancer, heart attacks and death, was only 70 percent effective and came with significant side effects.

“Hepatitis C is only the second disease or condition for which a cure has been discovered within a single lifespan of the disease or condition discovery,” the complaint states. “Hepatitis C was discovered in 1990 and the cure was approved in 2014. Hepatitis C could be completely eradicated in a few years as a result of Harvoni, assuming patients, such as Kondell, have access to this incredible cure.”

According to the complaint, Kondell has been a policyholder at Florida Blue for over 20 years. She was diagnosed with Hep C, and in February 2015 her physician prescribed Harvoni. Florida Blue immediately denied coverage, the complaint states. Although her doctor appealed the insurer’s decision twice Florida Blue continued to deny coverage, claiming Kondell’s liver wasn’t severely damaged.

“No known medical study supports this denial, and nothing in Kondell’s policy (or any of the class members’ policies) grants defendant the right to withhold a potentially life-saving cure, particularly on the perverse and pretextual ‘basis’ that it is not ‘medically necessary,’” the complaint states.

The complaint claims that Blue Cross is in violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and breached the contract of all policyholders diagnosed with hepatitis C who were denied coverage. The suit is asking the court to demand Florida Blue cover the treatment and seeks unspecified damages in excess of $5 million.

The case is Kondell v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida Inc., case number 0:15-cv-61118, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Oil Spill Launches Legal Clean-Up…The people of Santa Barbara have filed an environmental class action lawsuit against Plains All American Pipeline (NYSE:PAA) stemming from the Refugio State Beach oil spill in Santa Barbara. The class action complaint alleges the Texas-based company negligently operated the pipeline, Line 901, causing a rupture that discharged over 100,000 gallons of crude oil onto beaches and into the Pacific Ocean, damaging ecologically and economically significant natural resources. The complaint claims violations of state and federal laws.

“In Santa Barbara, those environmental impacts translate to profound economic impacts. In the short term, the oil from Plains All American’s ruptured pipeline has closed fishing grounds and shellfish areas, and caused canceled reservations from tourists who otherwise would be spending their money on hotels, restaurants, kayaking or surf trips, and fishing charters,” the complaint states.

The complaint was filed on behalf of Stace Cheverez, a sea urchin diver and nearshore fisherman. Plains All American’s oil spill has led to the closure of areas where Cheverez customarily fishes for commercially valuable nearshore species like Grass Rockfish.

Sadly, Plains All American Pipeline is no stranger to oil spills. The company has accumulated 175 safety and maintenance infractions since 2006. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration shows Plains’ rate of incidents per mile of pipe is more than three times the national average. “In short, Defendant has an ugly tradition of operating pipelines that fail. The communities through which it transports oil suffer the consequences,” the complaint alleges. Not the neighbor any of us would desire, never mind being a good corporate citizen. What ever happened to that?

The spill, which triggered California Governor Jerry Brown to declare a state of emergency, may have extreme effects on both the environment and economy. Two beaches have been closed and nearby hotels have been fielding calls from concerned visitors who planned on visiting Santa Barbara, one of Southern California’s top tourist destinations, over Memorial Day weekend.

Top Settlements

Phoenix to pony up $42M in bad faith insurance settlement …the bad faith insurance class action lawsuit alleged the insurer unfairly raised rates on premium-adjustable universal life insurance policies. Additionally, the company has also agreed to freeze its rates for five years. Nice.

The Phoenix Life settlement also prevents Phoenix from challenging the validity of any class member’s PAUL policy as an unlawful “life wager,” which the insurer has frequently done in order to avoid paying death benefits, according to the lawsuit.

The class action lawsuit was filed following an announcement by Phoenix Life that it was raising COI rates on PAUL policies in 2010 and again in 2011. The lawsuit alleged the insurer was treating life settlement investors unfairly. Unlike whole life insurance policies that require fixed monthly premium payments, PAUL policies only require premiums to cover COI charges and other expenses, allowing policyholders to minimize their investments, according to the plaintiffs.

The PAUL policyholders claimed Phoenix discriminated against life settlement investors who pay their premiums on time by hiking the COI rates and did so because the company comes out ahead when policies lapse, and it’s able to avoid paying death benefits.

The more than 1,000 class members will be sent checks in the mail, unless they opt out of the settlement. A $25,000 incentive award has been granted for named plaintiff Martin Fleisher.

The case is Fleisher v. Phoenix Life Insurance Co., case number 1:11-cv-08405, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Hokee Dokee—That’s a wrap folks…See you at the Bar!

Week Adjourned: 5.29.15 – Similac, JC Penney, Capital One

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Heads Up New Parents…Organic Similac not so organic—according to a consumer fraud class action filed against Abbott Laboratories, the maker of Similac infant formula food. The lawsuit alleges the label stating the food is organic is false and misleading because the formula isn’t actually organic.

Filed by Sara Margentette, Matthew O’Neil Nighswander and Ellen Steinlien in U.S. District Court in New York, the Similac lawsuit alleges Abbott’s Similac Advance Organic Infant Formulas contained ingredients that are prohibited in organic foods.

According to the complaint some 26 of the 49 listed ingredients are not allowed in organic food. The suit states the ingredients were “irradiated substances, synthetic compounds, or produced from hazardous substances.”

The plaintiffs claim Abbot described the Similac Infant formula as organic in order to persuade consumers to purchase it, thereby increasing its sales and profits.

“As a result of its false and misleading labeling, Abbott was able to sell its ‘Organic’ Infant Formula to hundreds of thousands of consumers throughout the United States and to realize sizeable profits,” the lawsuit states. Plaintiffs are seeking class certification and more than $5 million in damages plus court costs.

The case is United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York case number 1:15-cv-2837.

JC Penny Nailed re: its Sales? It’s another consumer fraud class action lawsuit for JC Penney over its alleged practice of artificially inflating merchandise prices only to mark them down to create the appearance of a “sale” price. According to the lawsuit, the retail chain’s pricing practices are equivalent to deceptive and fraudulent advertising.

The JC Penney class action was certified last week, and accuses the national retail chain of operating a “massive, years-long, pervasive campaign” to deceive shoppers about its pricing for private-label brands, and for outside brands such as Liz Claiborne, sold exclusively by JC Penny.

The lawsuit states that Cynthia Spann, lead plaintiff in the class action, discovered the deceptive advertising practices after buying three blouses for $17.99 each, a 40 percent discount from the “original” $30 price, only to learn the price was never above $17.99 at any point during the prior three months.

The case is Spann v. J.C. Penney Corp et al, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, No. 12-00215.

Top Settlements

Another Overdraft Fee Class Action is…Over! You gotta love this! Capital One Bank NA has to pony up $31.8 million as settlement of a lawsuit that alleged the bank manipulated its overdraft fees. Approved by US District Judge James Lawrence King, the settlement fund of $31.76 million represents 35 percent of the most damages plaintiffs could expect to recover at trial.

The Capital One overdraft fee lawsuit has taken nearly five years and the class consists of roughly 611,000 members. Capital One tried three times to have the lawsuit thrown out. It alleged that the bank deducted money from customers’ accounts based on the size of their transactions, not in chronological order, thereby maximizing the amount of overdraft fees it charged.

For settlement class members who do not opt out, prorated shares from the settlement fund will automatically be sent to them. Capital One’s data was used to determine which account holders were harmed by the high-to-low posting practice.

The case is In re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, case number 1:09-md-02036, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Hokee Dokee—That’s a wrap folks…See you at the Bar!

Week Adjourned: 5.22.15 – Starbucks, AT&T, Car Loan Robocalling

Top Class Action Lawsuits

The King of Coffee is facing a class action lawsuit alleging a bit of consumer fraud—in the guise of misleading advertising. The lawsuit alleges Starbucks advertised prices for product that are lower than those charged by baristas. That’s not very nice.

Specifically, the Starbucks lawsuit contends that the coffee brewers advertising for reduced-fat turkey bacon breakfast sandwich and sausage and cheddar breakfast sandwich include prices that are lower than that which the plaintiff, Sarah Martin, paid. The turkey bacon sandwich was advertised for $3.45 when it actually costs $3.75, while the sausage and cheddar sandwich was advertised as $3.25 when the actual price is $3.45, according to the complaint.

Apparently, there are at least seven Starbucks locations in Los Angeles county where the in store pricing is different from the advertised price. The potential class action suit alleges violations of the California statutes covering consumer protection, false advertising, unfair competition, unjust enrichment and fraud. That should about cover it.

Further, the lawsuit contends that Starbuck’s policy regarding receipts helped it conceal the alleged false advertisement. “Plaintiff and members of the proposed classes relied to their detriment on Starbucks misrepresentations regarding the price of goods,” the complaint states. “Starbucks also has the policy of asking consumers whether they would like a copy of their receipt, which makes it harder to discover the misrepresentation.”

The putative class would include any Starbucks customer who purchased items at California locations where the wrong price was advertised in the last four years.

The case is Sarah Martin et al. v. Starbucks Corp. et al., case number BC582335, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles.

AT&T is in the Cross-hairs… of an unpaid overtime class action lawsuit brought by a training manager who alleges the company is in violation of California labor law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Specifically, the AT&T lawsuit contends that the telecommunications giant intentionally misclassified the workers as being exempt from overtime requirements in order to avoid giving them the extra pay they were entitled to under state and national employment laws.

Filed in the US District Court for the Central District of California, plaintiff Wendell Watson alleges that despite assigning the trainers their work and being aware that they often worked longer than 40 hours a week, AT&T refused to pay overtime to training specialists nationally.

Here’s the skinny, according to a statement issued by attorney’s representing the plaintiff: AT&T employees involved in designing company trainings often work nights and weekends interviewing experts at the company and then passing the information on to instructors. In the lawsuit, Watson, an AT&T training design manager since 2001, states that the workers not only did not receive overtime but also regularly worked more than five consecutive hours without a required half-hour meal break or a second break after working for 10 hours.

The lawsuit also states that “In addition, the California plaintiff and California class members regularly work and have worked without being afforded at least one 10-minute rest break, in which they were relieved of all duty, per four hours of work.”

AT&T is also being accused of failing to provide accurate wage statements, such that workers were not able to determine how much and for what hours they were being paid. Not an uncommon complaint these days, sadly.

The case is Walton v. AT&T Inc., case number 2:15-cv-03716, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Top Settlements

Here’s some good news to help your Friday along… A $10.2 million settlement has been agreed between the plaintiffs in a robocall class action lawsuit and JPMorgan Chase Bank NA. The bank allegedly made unsolicited robocalls to more than 2 million customers’ cellphones, in violation of the Telephone Consumer protection Act (TCPA).

According to the robocall agreement, if approved, Chase will pay $10.2 million into a non-reversionary settlement fund, with approximately $45 to $55 to be paid to each of the 2.2 million class members.

Filed by plaintiff Sheila Allen in November 2013, the lawsuit contends JPMorgan Chase and Chase Auto Finance Corp. violated the TCPA by placing approximately 80 calls to Allen’s cellphone from July 2013 through to November 2013.

Allen alleges that the robocalls left voicemails telling her to call back certain numbers to discuss her account, even though she had no auto loan with Chase and never provided her phone number to the bank in connection with any car loan.

Despite Allen contacting Chase repeatedly, requesting the phone calls stop, nothing changed. Further, she contends she was not provided with any instructions on how to opt out of the automated calls, nor was she given the opportunity to opt out.

The case is Sheila Allen v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A., case number 1:13-cv-08285 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Hokee Dokee—That’s a wrap folks…See you at the Bar!

Week Adjourned: 5.15.15 – Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, Bar Exam Software

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Wells Fargo playing fast and loose with customer accounts? Maybe…It got hit with a class action lawsuit this week by a former customer who claims that California’s largest bank engages in consumer banking fraud. What does that mean exactly? Well, Shahriar Jabbari of Campbell, CA, alleges that he and a nationwide class of consumers were victims of Wells Fargo’s tolerance and encouragement of abuses by workers in its branches. The specific allegations are unfair enrichment and violations of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FACTA) and California unfair competition and consumer protection laws.

Here’s the back story…according to the lawsuit, Jabbari began banking with Wells Fargo in 2011, wanting simply to open one checking and one savings account. However, shortly after opening his accounts, he allegedly noticed “some anomalies, such as unwanted fees.” Then in 2013, the lawsuit states that Jabbari visited the Wells Fargo branch in Los Gatos to ask about an unauthorized charge. That’s when an employee showed him how accounts had been opened in his name using a signature that was not his, according to the complaint.

The complaint states that Jabbari discovered seven accounts issued without his permission. A few months later, he received a change of address notification showing several accounts that he had not opened and that he thought had been closed.

Jabbari alleged that bill collectors badgered him to pay fees on Wells Fargo accounts that were opened without his knowledge. The suit alleges that bank employees: Withdrew money from customers’ authorized accounts to pay for the fees assessed by Wells Fargo on unauthorized accounts opened in customers’ names without their knowledge; placed customers into collection when fees and other debts accumulated in unauthorized accounts and went unpaid; and placed derogatory information in credit reports when unauthorized fees went unpaid.

The lawsuit, filed in US District Court in San Francisco, seeks restitution from the profits Wells made on “its unfair and unlawful practices,” In addition to triple damages.

Top Settlements

More banking misconduct…this time it’s a win for the plaintiffs…to the tune of $10.2 million—that’s the amount of the settlement agreed between the plaintiffs in a robocall class action lawsuit and JPMorgan Chase Bank NA.

The bank allegedly made unsolicitied robocalls to more than 2 million customers’ cellphones, in violation of the Telephone Consumer protection Act (TCPA).

According to the agreement, if approved, Chase will pay $10.2 million into a non-reversionary settlement fund, with approximately $45 to $55 to be paid to each of the 2.2 million class members.

The case is Sheila Allen v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A., case number 1:13-cv-08285 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Law students will be getting some justice it seems after a $2.1 million settlement was reached in a consumer fraud class action lawsuit pending against ExamSoft Worldwide Inc. If the proposed settlement get the final nod, it will resolve allegations that the company failed to adequately respond to glitches reported in its exam software, which prevented state bar applicants from uploading their exam answers.

The defect that triggered the lawsuit is likely ever law student’s nightmare. The target of the lawsuit was SoftTest, currently the only means by which prospective lawyers in dozens of states can take the bar exam electronically. The program failed during last week’s exams, the company acknowledged, and the lawsuit, which contained deceptive marketing and negligence claims, failed to live up to its promises that it would make exam day less stressful.

According to the terms of the agreement each member of the class would receive $90. Class members consist of applicants who took the test in 43 states in July 2014. Tens of thousands of bar exam takers paid between $100 and $150 for a license to use ExamSoft’s software, SofTest, which allegedly failed after the first day of the exam, according to court documents.

Court documents also show that in addition to the $2.1 million payment, ExamSoft has made or is making enhancements to its technology and communications practices that will enable it to better communicate with test-takers and bar examiners.

The case is Amanda West et al. v. ExamSoft Worldwide Inc., case number 1:14-cv-22950, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Hokee Dokee—That’s a wrap folks…See you at the Bar!

Week Adjourned: 5.8.15 – Dog Chews, Uber, Western Union

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Dogs: Don’t Chew on This… Allegedly defective dog bone chew toys are killing and injuring dogs? That seems to be the sum of a consumer fraud class action lawsuit filed against Dynamic Pet Productions and its parent company, Frick’s Meat Products. The dog bone chew class action was filed by a dog owner who alleges her basset hound suffered fatal injuries after it swallowed a piece of a splintered dog bone chew toy made by the defendant.

In the putative class action, Khristie Reed alleges that she and thousands of other dog owners watched their pets suffer, and in some cases die, after splinters from Dynamic’s “Real Ham Bone For Dogs” injured their pets, despite the company’s claims that the bone is a safe chew toy for dogs.

“The Real Ham Bone For Dogs is not appropriate for dogs and is not safe for its intended purpose, despite defendants’ contrary representations,” the complaint states. “Thousands of dogs have suffered a terrible array of illnesses, including stomach, intestinal and rectal bleeding, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation and seizures, and have died gruesome, bloody deaths as a result of chewing [Dynamic’s] Real Ham Bone For Dogs.”

Since Dynamic began selling the dog bones in 2001, thousands of customers have purchased them through stores such as Wal-Mart, Sam’s Club and Dollar General, according to the complaint. Frick’ Meat Products, the parent company, created the products Dynamic as a way to market waste from its meat products.

The lawsuit states that in 2010, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a statement warning dog owners that splinters from dog bones could result in injury or even death. Further to that warning, and in response to public outcry, the Missouri Better Business Bureau alerted Dynamic and Frick’s to the dangers of their product. However, Frick’s and Dynamic continued to market the dog bone chew toys without providing a safety warning.

Reed contends, in the complaint, that Dynamic was aware of the dangers associated with the dog bone as early as 2006, following consumer complaints to the company about pet injuries and deaths. Pet owners also began posting complaints about the bone to online forums, claiming the bone splintered easily, the lawsuit states.

“Nowhere do [the two companies] state the truth that the Real Ham Bone For Dogs is a dangerous product that should not be given to dogs,” the suit states.

The complaint goes on to state that Frick and Dynamic’s continued marketing of the bone is a violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the Business and Professions Code, as it misrepresents the product as a safe one. Reed and other owners also allege that the company committed fraud, as it had a duty to alert consumers to the dangers of the product and did not do so. Finally, Reed alleges that Dynamic and Frick’s had a “secret warranty program, paying off pet owners who persistently complained about their products to “keep them quiet.”

The lawsuit seeks damages, including punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, an injunction preventing the companies from continuing any unlawful practices, and the awarding of the profits the two companies made from unethical practices to the plaintiffs involved.

The case is Khristie Reed, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Dynamic Pet Products and Frick’s Meat Products Inc., case number 3:15-cv-00987 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

Is Uber a Bad Deal for Drivers? An employment class action lawsuit was filed against Uber this week by a former driver who was stabbed in the face by a passenger, and who claims that he and others similarly situated, are misclassified by the company as being independent contractors, when they are employees, in violation of California labor law.

Why? In the Uber lawsuit, Abdo Ghazi, claims that he is owed worker’s compensation by Uber, which he would automatically receive if he were classified as an employee.

According to the complaint, “As a consequence of misclassifying its drivers, Uber illegally lowered its cost of doing business by fialing to secure payment of workers’ compensation insurance covering its drivers pursuant to California Labor Code 3700. Uber’s misclassification of drivers as independent contractors gave it an unfair advantage over competing transportation companies, harmed Uber’s drivers and violated California law.”

The lawsuit seeks to reclassify Uber drivers as employees. Anyone who is an Uber driver, or who has worked in that capacity, is included as a plaintiff in the suit.

The case number is CGC15-545532, Abdo Ghazi vs. Uber Technologies, Inc, Rasier LLC; Rasier-CA, LLC and Does 1-10. Plaintiffs are represented by Lohr, Ripamonti & Segarich LLP.

Top Settlements

Ever had a Wire Transfer go Sideways and the Funds Disappear? Then this settlement may interest you. Western Union looks set to pony up $133 million in settlement of an unfair business practices class action lawsuit that claims the company kept money from failed wire transfers for five years, even though they had the contact information for the senders. Where do you start…

Under the terms of the Western Union settlement, class members will recover interest for the time during which Western Union held these funds, something they would not have received simply by asking Western Union to return their money, court documents show.

Additionally, the settlement terms stipulate that Western Union must change its business practices such that it informs customers when their wire transfers fail.

The suit resulted from Western Union’s practice of keeping money from failed transfers and earning interest, electing not to inform customers until their money was due to be absorbed by states’ unclaimed and abandoned property departments.

According to the lawsuit, the period of time Western Union waited to inform customers of the failed transfers often meant that the contact information for those customers was no longer valid.

The case is Tennille, et al v. Western Union, et al, case no. 13-1310 in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Hokee Dokee- That’s a wrap folks…See you at the Bar!

Week Adjourned: 5.1.15 – Tinder, Hertz, Actos

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Tinder’s igniting a wee litigation storm it seems. The company behind the popular dating app of the same name, has been hit with another class action lawsuit filed by a customer who alleges the app charges men and users over the age of 30 more to use its premium service, and is therefore discriminating on the basis of age and gender. Isn’t that just good business? You use more, you pay more? No?

Maybe not. Filed in California federal court, by Plaintiff Michael Manapol, this Tinder lawsuit contends that Manapol paid $19.99 for a one-month subscription to the service, while Tinder charged $9.99 for those under 30. He also alleges he was charged recurring, automatic renewal fees, in violation of California law, and that his account was illegally debited, without his authorization.

“Defendant offers no discounts for its Tinder Plus services, than that offered to consumers based solely upon their age. However, [women] receive more favorable swiping terms than man, which is akin to free entrance to Ladies Night, a practice deemed illegal by the California Supreme Court,” the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit also alleges Tinder falsely advertised its service by claiming to be “free.” One Billy Warner filed a lawsuit over the free or not-so-free Tinder advertising back in March.

The Manapol lawsuit seeks to establish a nationwide class of people who downloaded the Tinder app before March 2, 2015. In addition, four subclasses are proposed, specifically: an auto-renewal subclass; a price discrimination subclass; a gender discrimination subclass; and an Electronic Funds Transfer Act subclass.

The complaint cites an interview with Tinder spokeswoman’s on National Public Radio, in which she allegedly said, “During our testing we’ve learned, not surprisingly, that younger users are just as excited about Tinder Plus but are more budget constrained and need a lower price to pull the trigger.”

FYI…The case is Michael Manapol et al. v. Tinder Inc. et al., case number 2:15-cv-03175, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Hertz employees being taken for a ride? The Hertz Corp is facing a potential $4 million unpaid wages and overtime class action alleging the company doesn’t pay its employees for working through breaks, and fails to pay them overtime wages.

No stranger to employment lawsuits, this one, alleges that the vehicle rental chain systematically underpaid its customer service representatives in various ways, in violation of the California labor law. The Hertz overtime lawsuit was filed by Plaintiff Juan Herrera on behalf of himself and all other non-overtime exempt California Hertz employees for the previous four years.

“Defendants knew they had a duty to accurately compensate plaintiff and class members for all hours worked, including overtime wages and meal and rest period premiums, and that defendants had the financial ability to pay such compensation, but willfully, knowingly, recklessly and/or intentionally failed to do so,” Herrera states.

Specifically, the complaint states that Hertz fails to provide meal and rest periods for its employees by structuring its schedules, policies and workload requirements to not allow the workers their full meal and rest breaks. The company then fails to properly compensate them for the loss.

Additionally, Herrera alleges that Hertz requires its customer service representatives to prepare for their shifts without pay and failing to factor commissions into the employees’ regular rate of pay when calculating overtime pay rates.

That lawsuit also seeks to represent non-overtime exempt employees in California, which Hertz estimates amounts to as many as 2,000 former employees and as much as $11.5 million in alleged damages.

The case is Juan Herrera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Hertz Corp. et al., case number BC579320, in the Superior Court of the State of California County of Los Angeles.

Top Settlements

This is a biggie—to the tune of $2.4 billion… That’s the sum agreed to in a settlement between Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. and some 9,000 plaintiffs who filed personal injury lawsuits against the company, alleging it failed to warn of bladder cancer risks from taking its Type 2 diabetes drug Actos (pioglitazone hydrochloride).

Under the terms of the agreement, Takeda will establish a fund of between $2.37 billion and $2.4 billion, depending on how many Actos litigants opt into the settlement.

Over 4,000 cases are included in this agreement, and were coordinated in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, as well as lawsuits filed by about 4,000 people in Cook County, IL, according to lawyers for the plaintiffs.

While Takeda denies any wrongdoing in this agreement, the settlement will recover some compensation for the victims who have been injured and, in some cases, maimed by bladder cancer while taking Actos.

Hokee Dokee—That’s a wrap folks…See you at the Bar!

Week Adjourned: 4.24.15 – Match.com, Turbo Tax, Generic Provigil

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Match.com has managed to light a fire under one customer’s arse—so much so that said person has filed a proposed consumer fraud class action alleging the dating site is in violation of state law for failing to inform clients that they can end their service agreements by sending a letter to the company. Well, their tagline says “Start your love story”…kinda the Hotel California (all due respect to the Eagles) of taglines there… And who knew?

Filed in California federal court by Plaintiff Zeke Graf, the Match.com lawsuit alleges that in 2012, when Graf joined Match.com, the company’s contract did not cite a notice required by California law stating that new customers can cancel their contracts within three business days by sending a letter.

Additionally, Graf’s complaint maintains that a consumer can cancel their contract with a dating service at any time, should it fail to comply with the law. Match’s contract stated otherwise, according to the suit.

“In fact, defendant’s contract explicitly stated that plaintiff’s subscription with defendant would remain active until the end of plaintiff’s subscription period following plaintiff’s cancellation of said dating service contract,” the complaint states.

Therefore, Graf contends, Match.com is forcing Californian daters to enter into contracts that require them to waive protections granted under state law, and this has been taking place for at least the past four years.

According to the complaint, through its contract practices, Match.com is running a scheme to make “money from California consumers through false, deceptive, and misleading means.”

“Defendant had other reasonably available alternatives to further its legitimate business interest, other than the conduct described herein, such as adequately disclosing the notice of consumers’ rights to cancel contacts with defendant,” the complaint states.

Heads up all you unhappy matcher.commers….Graf seeks to represent a class of California consumers who bought subscriptions to Match.com during the past four years and whose contracts failed to include their cancellation notice rights.

The case is Graf v. Match.com LLC, case number 2:15-cv-02913 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

As if filing your taxes wasn’t painful enough, now there are allegations that Intuit Inc, the software run by Turbo Tax, failed to protect people from, yes you guessed it, data breaches. In fact, a putative class action was filed this week against Intuit Inc alleging the maker of the tax-preparation software was negligent in failing to protect them from identity theft by not safeguarding sensitive personal data. The complaint, filed by Turbo Tax users, claims Intuit’s actions resulted in billions of dollars in tax fraud.

Specifically, the Turbo Tax lawsuit, filed by lead plaintiffs Christine Diaz and Michelle Fugatt, claims Intuit’s lax controls placed revenue over ethics, leaving customers susceptible to third-party tax fraud. Further, the complaint states the despite a recent surge in fraudulent tax returns and massive data breaches, Intuit failed to correct the problem or properly report fraudulent tax filings to the IRS for fear of losing revenue.

“Plaintiffs allege that defendant’s negligent mishandling of fraudulent tax filings facilitated the theft of billions of tax dollars by cybercriminals by allowing thousands of fraudulent tax returns to be filed through use of its software,” the complaint states.

One month ago, Intuit stated it had received inquiries from the US Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission investigating earlier reports that 19 states had identified fraudulent returns using TurboTax software.

In February, Intuit temporarily stopped its state e-filing return program following announcements by Alabama, Minnesota and Utah departments of revenue that they had flagged TurboTax returns because of fraudulent activity.

According to the complaint, Intuit controls about 60 percent of the self-preparation software market. Terrific.

Diaz, who used TurboTax for a 2010 federal return and Ohio state return, learned in January 2015 that fraudulent state tax filings had been filed, purportedly on her behalf, in Michigan, Missouri, Ohio and Oklahoma, plus a federal filing with the IRS.

According to the lawsuit, Diaz received a $242.75 bill from TurboTax for e-flings that were allegedly not hers. She claims she had not entered any information in TurboTax’s system since 2011.

The complaint goes on to state that Intuit advised Diaz’s husband that fraudulent filings were made on her behalf but the company had not followed up to resolve the matter. Diaz is no longer eligible for electronic filing of her tax returns and is subject to ongoing credit monitoring.

According to the complaint, the exact number of plaintiffs is unknown but may be in the thousands as fraudulent tax filings in TurboTax customers’ names were generated and potentially millions of TurboTax customers’ data has been accessed.

The complaint, which accuses Intuit of violating California’s Unfair Competition Law and Customer Records Act, as well as negligence and breach of contract, seeks damages as well as an injunction ordering Intuit to step up its security procedures, among other relief.

“Rather than protecting customers’ personal and financial information by implementing stricter security measures, TurboTax has instead knowingly facilitated identity theft tax refund fraud by allowing cybercriminals easy access to its customers’ most private information,” the complaint states.

FYI—The case is Christine Diaz and Michelle Fugatt et al v. Intuit Inc., case number 5:15-cv-01778, in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Top Settlements

You delay you pay… Bingo! A $512 million settlement agreement has been reached in an antitrust lawsuit pending against Cephalon Pharmaceuticals. The lawsuit alleged the defendant delayed the introduction of a generic version of the drug Provigil into the market. Nice.

According to court documents, the agreement was reached between the class of direct purchasers and defendants Cephalon, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. and Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc. The other defendants in the case, Mylan Laboratories Inc. and Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., were not included in the settlement.

In the lawsuit, plaintiffs claimed that the settling defendants, referred to in the agreement as the Cephalon defendants, “violated federal antitrust law by wrongfully delaying the introduction of generic versions of the prescription drug Provigil (modafinil), a drug indicated for the treatment of certain sleep disorders.” The defendants did not admit liability in the agreement.

The class was defined as “all persons or entities in the United States and its territories who purchased Provigil in any form directly from Cephalon at any time during the period from June 24, 2006, through August 31, 2012.”

The agreement further states that up to 33-and-a-third percent of the overall payout will be sought as compensation. Incentive awards of $100,000 per named plaintiffs, specifically, King Drug Co. of Florence, Rochester Drug Cooperative Inc. and Burlington Drug Company Inc., and $50,000 each for Meijer Distribution Inc. and SAJ Distributors Inc.

Hokee Dokee- That’s a wrap folks…See you at the Bar!

Week Adjourned: 4.17.15 – Source Naturals, Southwest Airlines, HAMP Mortgages

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Source Naturals a little light on the content? According to a consumer fraud class action lawsuit filed this week, it is. The plaintiff alleges the amounts of vitamins and minerals in the vitamins are inaccurate.

In her Source Naturals complaint, Jennifer Dougherty alleges she purchased the products online for about $20 in November. According to the lawsuit, Source Naturals advertised that its multivitamins contained 12,500 IU per serving of vitamin A. Dougherty claims that the amounts of the of six vitamins and minerals in its multivitamins were off by as much as 90 percent, which was shown in tests. Those same tests also revealed that the vitamin B-3 contained in the product was about 19 percent less than represented; calcium per serving was about 22 percent less; zinc was under by about 24 percent; manganese was under by about 36 percent; and magnesium was under by about 12 percent than what Source Naturals claimed, according to the lawsuit.

The Source Naturals lawsuit is seeking class action status for those that purchased the multivitamins and seeks less than $5 million plus court costs. The $5 million figure represents a threshold for removal under the Class Action Fairness Act.

Southwest Early Bird Check-In a scam? At least one passenger thinks so. Teri Lowry filed a consumer fraud class action lawsuit over allegations the airline misleads customers into purchasing early flight check-ins, billed as “Early-Bird” priority boarding.

Specifically, the Southwest Airlines lawsuit contends that the airline deceived her into purchasing an “Early-Bird” priority boarding cost for a flight she took in March 2014 from Los Angeles to Indianapolis.

Lowry claims she purchased a “Wanna Get Away” ticket offered by Southwest, and then added on the “Early-Bird Check-in” feature for $25 roundtrip. She states in her lawsuit that she purchased the feature based on previous experience when she traveled with Southwest and received a “B” boarding group assignment.

The lawsuit states that when Lowry contacted others who had received a higher boarding position than she did for her trip to Indianapolis, none of them had purchased the “Early Bird Check-In.”

According to the complaint, Southwest Airlines allocates boarding in the order in which a customer checks in online, with boarding broken into three groups of about 60 board positions each. According to the lawsuit, Southwest Airlines’ website states customers can obtain an A boarding position by purchasing an “Early Bird Check-in.”

In her complaint, Lowry alleges Southwest’s website says customers who purchased “Anytime” fares receive priority over other fare types including “Early Bird Check-ins.” The lawsuit alleges that contradicts other areas of the website that say “Anytime” or “Wanna Get Away” fares don’t have priority over other fares.

Top Settlements

A $4.5 million settlement has been reached in a consumer banking deceptive practices violations class action lawsuit against a unit of Morgan Stanley (Saxon). The lawsuit was filed by homeowners who allege the finance company denied thousands of California homeowners new terms through the federal Home Affordable Modification Plan (HAMP), which they claim resulted in some people losing their homes.

The Morgan Stanley HAMP settlement is preliminary and requires final approval, which, if granted, would pay the approximate 2,705 class members an average of $1,663 each. According to court documents, the settlement represented about 15 percent of the roughly $30 million in total trial payments made by the class.

According to the lawsuit, plaintiff Marie Gaudin alleged Saxon delayed processing her loan while urging her to make trial payments as part of its Home Affordable Modification Program, meant for homeowners who were behind on loan payments. Saxon later pulled the offer of permanent loan modification without cause, according to the lawsuit.

If approved, 1,365 class members who lost their homes after Saxon denied them permanent loan modifications would be paid back. All class members would receive a base award of approximately $184, with tiered payments being made to those who lost their homes in foreclosures or short sales without being offered loan modifications, and to those who entered into alternative modifications elsewhere.

The class is defined as California borrowers who entered into HAMP TPPs with Saxon through October 1, 2009, and made at least three trial period payments but did not receive HAMP loan modifications.

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