Week Adjourned - Part 18

Week Adjourned: 8.15.14 – Anheuser-Busch, SpaceX, FedEx

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top stories include Anheuser-Busch, SpaceX, FedEx.

This week it’s all about getting paid!

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Hey Bud–this one’s for you! The maker of Budweiser—Anheuser-Busch—is facing an unpaid overtime class action lawsuit filed in California federal court alleging the company failed to pay its drivers overtime. The lawsuit was filed by Charles Hill and Joe Correa, each of whom drove delivery trucks for Anheuser-Busch in California, allege “Anheuser-Busch’s violations … were willful and intentional.” They are also claiming that the beverage giant implemented pay structure that discouraged workers from taking required meal breaks and rest periods, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and California labor law. Nice! But we know this song…you work the hours, you don’t get paid, you can’t take your meal and rest breaks…. Why do so many big corporations have such a hard time paying their people? What is that about? Try it and see if you can get away with it? Then so much the better?

Well, not in this case…According to the Anheuser-Busch lawsuit, Hill has worked for Anheuser-Busch from about June 1999 through to the present, and Correa from 1985. During this time, a typical day work day for them involved picking up alcoholic beverages from a storage facility and delivering them to retail locations throughout the state of California. Drivers are allegedly paid a flat rate per day plus about 10 cents per case for every case delivered. Hill and Correa claim that the drivers can often work between eight to ten hours per day, which results in more than 40 hours per week, yet they are not compensated for the overtime.

Further, the lawsuit claims that despite there being a written policy in place regarding employees being able to take meal and rest breaks, Anheuser-Busch refused to allow the drivers to take them. The company further established a payment structure discouraging its drivers from taking meal and rest breaks because it would be impossible to be paid for the time.

The plaintiffs also allege the company does not pay its drivers for all hours worked including regular hours, because the company locates its clock out location in a remote area “to encourage drivers to clock out prior to finishing all their work.”

“The drivers routinely would clock out first and then proceed to the warehouse to finish their work duties [saving] them a trip back to the clock-out location,” the lawsuit states. “Anheuser-Busch knew about this practice but continued to allow the drivers to perform the work.”

The nitty gritty—the class action lawsuit seeks to represent all Anheuser-Busch truck drivers who drove routes exclusively in California during a four-year period prior to the filing of the instant case.

Additionally, the plaintiffs seek to represent a second “rest break” class comprised of all Anheuser-Busch’s California drivers who were paid a flat daily rate plus a piece rate for each case delivered over the course of the same four year period.

The FLSA claims are being brought as a collective action for Anheuser-Busch drivers during a three-year period preceding the complaint. The case is Charles Hill et al v. Anheuser-Busch InBev Worldwide Inc., case number 2:14-cv-06289, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Failure to WARN? Some 400 employees—sorry—ex-employees at Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) allege they were just laid off in violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Law (WARN ACT) act, according to a wrongful termination lawsuit just filed. The plaintiffs are alleging the company has also violated California labor law when it laid off those factory workers—which incidentally total about 11% of the company workforce—without proper notice.

FYI—The WARN ACT requires that every industrial or commercial establishment in California that employed 75 or more people in the last 12 months “may not order a mass layoff [defined as 50 or more employees in a 30 day period], relocation, or termination at a covered establishment unless, 60 days before the order takes effect” the employer gives written notice of the order to the employees, California “Employment Development Department, the local workforce investment board, and the chief elected official of each city and county government within which the termination, relocation, or mass layoff occurs.”

Filed by employees at company headquarters in Hawthorne, CA, the lawsuit is seeking class action status and damages for back pay, wages, injunctive relief, restitution, and civil penalties for illegal mass layoffs of 200 to 400 factory workers on or about July 21st.

Go get ‘em!

Top Settlements

FedEx Ground will be delivering $2.1 million in funds as settlement of a California labor law class action lawsuit brought. Filed by a group of current and former package handlers, the lawsuit alleged the company failed to provide proper meal and rest breaks.

Lead plaintiff Aaron Rangel alleged in the class action filed in September 2013, that FedEx Ground Package System Inc., was in violation of the California Labor Code and the state’s Unfair Competition Law.

As part of the settlement motion, about $7,500 will be set aside as an award for Rangel. Additionally, FedEx will be required to clarify its meal and rest period policies, which the agreement says could itself be worth $100,000.

Rangel, a former FedEx employee, said FedEx was required, but failed to provide, class members who worked two shifts in a workday a meal period, as well as a second rest period. He also said FedEx failed to provide pay employees for time spent in security checks.

If approved, the settlement will provisionally certify a class of current and former nonexempt FedEx package handlers in California who worked for the shipping company at any time from Sept. 24, 2009, through either Sept. 1, 2014, or the date of preliminary settlement approval, whichever is earlier.

The settlement agreement weighs a worker’s share based on whether he or she was a part-time or full-time employee, with more money going toward those who were full-time or who worked more than one four-hour shift in a workday. It also gives more money to former employees who were entitled to waiting time compensation.

If there is any unclaimed money, it will not revert back to FedEx, but instead be allocated toward those who did claim a share of the settlement fund, according to the terms of the agreement.

The case is Aaron Rangel v. FedEx Ground Package System Inc et al, case number 8:13-cv-01718, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Ok – Folks –time to adjourn for the week. Have a fab weekend –see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 8.8.14 – Gap, Hooters, MetLife

The top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week–top stories include the Gap, Hooters and MetLife

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Gap giving a whole new meaning to Loss Leaders …so much so they got slapped with a consumer fraud class action this week. The issue is Gap’s alleged misleading advertising over sale items…you know—it’s for sale—but the one next to it isn’t—that kind of thing… Essentially, the Gap class action lawsuit claims the clothing retailer uses advertisements for sale items that do not clearly indicate sale exclusions both in its stores and online.

The Gap lawsuit, entitled Misbah Etman, et al. v. The Gap Inc., et al., Case No. BC547161, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, alleges that lead plaintiff, Misbah Etman, was misled regarding which items were included in a sale display, which resulted in her paying full price for an item when she purchased it.

The backstory, in legal speak: “Because of the advertisement, Plaintiff believed that all the clothing on the rack bearing the advertisement was on sale at the price displayed on the advertisement and/or subject to the discount stated on the advertisement,” the lawsuit states. “Plaintiff looked through the clothing, selected three items she liked, waited in line for an open register, [Etman] found out at the register that Defendant would not sell her one of the items at the price displayed on the advertisement or would not discount one of the items in accordance with the advertisement.” Consequently, “[a]lthough she had been misled, Plaintiff purchased the non-discounted item and paid the higher price Defendant demanded.”

An example of an alleged advertisement Gap emailed “with a hyperlink to Defendant’s website stating clearly in dark letters against a white background ‘Hours to Shop!; Happy Monday; 40% Off Your Purchase; Ends Tonight.’” However, continues the complaint, “the email also states in barely noticeable lettering against a colored background ‘EXCLUSIONS APPLY.”

Further, “[o]nce a consumer clicks the hyperlink…the consumer is taken to Defendant’s website to shop [and], [w]hile shopping, Defendant’s website does not identify for consumers the items that are included in the sale, nor does it identify that items that are excluded from the sale,” alleges the Gap class action lawsuit.” And, “Defendant’s website does not even disclose whether an item is included in or excluded from the sale when a consumer selects an item to place in the consumer’s ‘shopping cart,’” the lawsuit states.

The consumer fraud lawsuit further claims that Gap also misleads consumers through its online stores by “enticing consumers to shop for, and to purchase, products from Defendant through Defendant’s website by means of false and misleading advertisements Defendant emails to consumers.”

The lawsuit seeks certification for a proposed Class of all other consumers who purchased products at Gap stores in California, or purchased products on the Gap website while in California, on days when Gap displayed the advertising described in the class action lawsuit.

So—heads up all you California Gap shoppers…

Not caring a Hoot for Hooters Text Messages.…What are you supposed to do when tits and ass just ain’t enough to get bums in seats in anymore (bad pun, I know). Send text messages to advertise your booty. Umm, maybe not. Hooters is facing class action lawsuit alleging the restaurant chain violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)—just the TCPA? Filed by lead plaintiff Peyman Zandifaez, the lawsuit alleges that on June 14, Zandifaez received an unsolicited text message on his cell phone from Hooters and a second unsolicited text message on July 5.

“The… SPAM text messages were form texts that were sent consumers on mass and just solely to the plaintiff, which is indicative of the use of an automatic telephone dialing system,” the complaint states. “[The] defendant used telephone number 368-32 to send this unsolicited SPAM text message to plaintiff’s cellular telephone.”

The Hooters lawsuit alleges that at no time did the plaintiff provide Hooters with his cellular phone number, through any medium, nor did he consent to receive such an unsolicited text message. Further, the plaintiff alleges that at no time did he sign up for nor use the defendant’s services or products, nor has he ever had any form of business relationship with Hooters.

“Through the unsolicited SPAM text message, defendant contacted plaintiff on plaintiff’s cellular telephone regarding an unsolicited service via an ‘automatic telephone dialing system,’” the lawsuit states. The ATDS has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, according to the suit.

According to the lawsuit, Zandifaez is charged for incoming calls and text messages and the text message constituted a call that was not for emergency purposes. “Plaintiff did not provide defendant or its agent prior express consent to receive text messages, including unsolicited text messages, to her cellular telephone,” the complaint states. Nice…Go get’em!!

Top Settlements

And as one TCPA lawsuit is filed, so another is settled… This week, in Los Angeles, a settlement agreement was reached in a class action lawsuit against Metlife which alleges a former agent faxed millions of advertisements for life insurance to consumers and businesses in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer protection Act (TCPA).

According to the terms of the MetLife settlement, the company, one of the largest life insurance companies in the US, will pay $23 million to resolve two related lawsuits, one in state court in Illinois and the other in federal court in Florida.

Incredibly, an estimated 1 to 2.8 million recipients of the faxes across the country will be covered by the settlement. The settlement will cover faxes sent between 2008 to 2014, even though the lawsuits focus on faxes sent by the agent between 2010 and 2012.

According to the lawsuits, the former MetLife agent Scott Storkick paid a fax-blasting specialty firm run out of offices in Fort Lauderdale, to help generate leads so that he could maintain his standing as one of the company’s top-performing agents. Ultimately, Storick said that the fax blasting campaign generated between 30 and 50 of the approximately 200 MetLife life-insurance policies he sold annually between 2010 and 2012.

Ok – Folks –time to adjourn for the week. Have a fab weekend –see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 8.1.14 – Michael Kors, Testosterone, Unsolicited Phone Calls

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top stories include: Testosterone, Michael Kors, Unsolicited Phone Calls

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Michael Kors Creative Merchandising? Michael Kors LLC may be getting more than it bargained for—the retailer got hit with a consumer fraud class action lawsuit alleging the discount prices it offers at its outlet stores and which are marketed as providing deep discounts over the suggested retail prices, are based on fabricated original prices. Surprised?

Specifically, the Michael Kors outlet store lawsuit claims 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.

Filed by lead plaintiff Tressa Gattinella, the lawsuit claims that Gattinella purchased a pair of jeans at a Kors Outlet in California earlier in the month for $79.00, believing she was paying significantly less than the original price of $120 listed on the tag, the suit states. That would be a reasonable assumption. But … of course there’s a but…

But… the Kors lawsuit contends that despite the Gattinella’s belief that she purchased the goods at a 33 percent discount, Michael Kors never intended to sell the jeans at the artificial $120 price listed on the tag, the suit says. By listing the false price comparison, Michael Kors deceived the plaintiff into making a full retail purchase with no discount, the complaint alleges.

“Plaintiff would not have made such purchase, or would not have paid the amount she did, but for Michael Kors’ false represented of the former price … of the items she purchased, as compared with the supposedly discounted ‘our price’ at which Michael Kors offered the items for sale,” the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit is seeking certification for a class of all California residents who purchased apparel from a Kors Outlet store and urges the court to issue an injunction ordering the company to comply with California’s comparative price advertising laws and prohibiting Michael Kors from using deceptive practices moving forward.

The lawsuit is Gattinella v. Michael Kors (USA), Inc. et al., case number 1:14-cv-05731, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Canada following suit….a class action testosterone lawsuit has been filed by plaintiffs in Canada who allege that they were never warned about the increased risk of cardiovascular events with the low testosterone injection Delatestryl. The case was filed on July 22, 2014 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

FYI—a multidistrict litigation involving over 150 testosterone lawsuits is also pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The case is In Re: Testosterone Replacement Therapy Product Liability Litigation (MDL No. 2545).

Testosterone products, used to treat so-called “Low T,” have been linked to serious cardiovascular problems such as pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), stroke, heart attack, and death. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration(FDA) began investigating the cardiovascular risks associated with testosterone products in late January; the agency reminded consumers that testosterone products are only approved for men who do not produce enough of the hormone due to specific medical conditions. Testosterone replacement therapy is not approved for Low T or other non-medical conditions.

Testosterone safety reviews were also launched by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and Health Canada. Recently, the FDA warned the public that there is a growing body of evidence suggesting that testosterone therapy may increase the risk of cardiovascular events in men.

The reviews were prompted by two research studies linking testosterone products to a higher risk of blood clot, stroke and heart attack. One study, published in last November in the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that older men were more likely to suffer cardiac death if they took testosterone. Older men and younger men with pre-existing heart problems were more likely to suffer a heart attack, according to another study published January in the journal, PloS.

Top Settlements

Unsolicited Phone Calls Elicit Settlement…Well, it’s not the largest settlement in class action history—but it’s a victory none-the-less. After all, one less unsolicited phone call has got to be a good thing!!! This week, a settlement has been reached in a Telephone Consumer protection Actclass action lawsuit that alleges the polling and public opinion research company Mountain West Research Center LC violated the Act by contacting consumers by phone without their permission.

The preliminary $1.5 million settlement will resolve the class action which was filed by Plaintiff Paul Mankin in September 2013 alleging Mountain West called people’s cellphones without prior express consent, using an automatic telephone dialing system and using an artificial or prerecorded voice.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Mountain West will create a $1.5 million fund to for a settlement administrator, a website, preparing an opt-out list, preparing a list of persons submitting objections to the settlement, and disbursing payments to all class members who do not opt-out.

Settlement members who do not opt out will receive a direct payment via check in the amount of approximately $65, according to court documents.

FYI—the case is Paul Mankin v. Mountain West Research Center LC, number 2:13-cv-06447 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

No info on a fairness hearing date yet—so stay tuned…

Ok – Folks –time to adjourn for the week. Have a fab weekend –see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 7.26.14 – Kia, Lexus, Johns Hopkins

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top lawsuits include Kia, Lexus and Johns Hopkins.

Will 2014 be remembered as the year of the Car Recall?

Top Class Action Lawsuits

So, who’s lost count of how many defective auto recalls we’re up to now? Here’s a couple more…this time it’s Kia and Lexus…

Surprise! Kia Motors America Inc. got hit with a defective products class action lawsuit this week, filed in California federal court over allegations the car maker failed to disclose a defective brake switch in certain models. The defect can cause the brake light to fail to illuminate and cruise control to remain on, increasing the risk for accidents. Ok—that could be dangerous.

The Kia lawsuit, filed by lead plaintiff William Precht, claims that Kia was aware of the brake switch defect for years, and went as far as to initiate recalls for a number of different models in 2009. The company also initiated recalls in May 2013 which did not include its 2011 Sportage, 2008-2010 Optima and 2008-2011 Sedona vehicles, despite the fact that those models were also affected. Kia allegedly expanded the recall to include the vehicles in November 2013 but did not notify consumers, the complaint states.

According to the lawsuit, “Defendant does not dispute the safety risk caused by the brake switch defect, yet it has not effectuated any purported recall of the class vehicles and has left class members with an acknowledged safety risk and unreimbursed repair bills.”

The backstory—Precht alleges he purchased a new Sportage vehicle in 2011, but began having difficulty engaging the car’s automatic transmission during the winter of 2013. Precht alleges he was repeatedly unable to put the car in gear even after depressing the brake pedal, causing the anti-lock brake and front-wheel drive slippage icons to illuminate on the dash. He claims he was forced to manually access an override in order to place the vehicle into drive again.

According to the complaint, Precht took the car to an authorized Kia repair facility for assistance, only to be told that such repairs were not covered under the warranty, causing him to pay $140 to have the defect repaired.

The lawsuit alleges Kia knowingly hid from consumers that the vehicles’ brake switch contained a defect that leads to brake light failure, cruise control not cancelling with depression of the brake pedal, the push button start not functioning and the shift interlock remaining stuck in park so the vehicle cannot be moved.

The complaint states that once the defect occurs in the cars, it poses a safety risk to both driver and passengers, with the brake light failure increasing the risk of rear-end collision, and the failure of cruise control failure increasing the risk for a front-end collision. Further, if the push button start doesn’t function, the car cannot be shifted into drive or reverse from park, leaving individuals stranded, the lawsuit states.

The defect typically manifests itself shortly after the vehicles’ warranties expire, the suit claims, resulting in the automaker refusing to cover repair costs of an issue it hid from consumers.

The lawsuit is seeking certification of a nationwide class of owners and lessees of the affected models, as well as a Florida subclass, and includes claims for state law violations, breach of warranty and negligence.

The suit is Precht v. Kia Motors America, Inc., case number 8:14-cv-01148, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Lexus—what’s their tagline—something about the relentless pursuit of perfection? They are also facing a defective products class action lawsuit filed by two independent Lexus owners who allege the luxury vehicle company, and its parent, Toyota Motor Corp, sold defective vehicles with interiors that are unable to withstand the Florida heat. Are you kidding?

Nope. The Lexus lawsuit, contends that the dashboards and other, similar interior components of their Lexus vehicles grew sticky, oily, shiny, cracked and otherwise degraded in appearance when exposed to the natural heat and humidity in Florida. Yuk.

The skinny—Daniela Perez and Jesus del Rio allege that Lexus was aware of the problem with the dashboards but refused to make repairs in the affected vehicles once the warranties expired. While Toyota sent out a service bulletin to its dealerships in 2011, alerting dealers to the defect and instructing them to make repairs on the burned dashboards, the dealerships refused to repair damages in vehicles that are no longer covered by the Lexus comprehensive warranty.

Further, Perez and del Rio allege that the vehicles were marketed as being suitable for the climate in Florida yet the product disintegrated in the heat under normal conditions in the vehicles, “These vehicles are marketed as luxury vehicles and as the product of Lexus’ never-ending ‘pursuit of perfection,’” the plaintiffs alleged in the suit, and they state that the dealerships refused to do anything about it. The complaint names two Lexus dealerships, Lexus of Kendall, which serves Miami, Coral Gables and South Florida, and Scanlon Lexus of Fort Myers. It also names Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc.

The case is Daniela Perez et al. v. GFB Enterprises LLC d/b/a/ Lexus of Kendall et al., in the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit In and For Miami-Dade County.

Top Settlements

This is just bad all round. A $190 million settlement has been awarded against Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore in settlement of a medical malpractice class action lawsuit that alleges a gynecologist secretly photographed his patients. I don’t know—I’m thinking malpractice doesn’t quite get to the heart of this one.

The Johns Hopkins lawsuit, with more than 9,000 plaintiffs, claims that Dr. Nikita Levy used hidden surveillance cameras on his patients, including one hidden in a camera pen.

Levy, an obstetrician-gynecologist, was employed at Johns Hopkins from 1988 to 2013. The lawsuit claimed that the hospital should have been award of what Levy was doing, and that they failed to supervise him properly or investigate him.

In February 2013 Levy was fired from the hospital and just 10 days later he committed suicide.

Ok – Folks –time to adjourn for the week. Have a fab weekend –see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 7.18.14 – Subaru, Kroger, Ralph’s, Sony PlayStation

Top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week…top stories include Subaru, Kroger, Ralph’s and Sony PlayStation.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Suing Subaru… that’s right folks…if you own or lease certain Forester, Legacy, Outback, Impreza and Crosstek models you can join a Subaru class action lawsuit alleging the company knowingly sold vehicles containing a defect that causes the cars to consume excessive amounts of oil. Also known as consumer fraud…

According to the complaint, filed by Lead plaintiffs Keith Yaeger and Michael Schuler, Subaru concealed from consumers the fact that certain Forester, Legacy, Outback, Impreza and Crosstek models have defective piston rings that prevent the engine from maintaining the proper level of oil and cause an abnormal amount of oil consumption, leading to engine failure and increasing the risk of accident.

“Not only did Subaru actively conceal the material fact that particular components within the class vehicles’ engines are defective, they did not reveal that the existence of the defect would diminish the intrinsic and resale value of the class vehicles and lead to the safety concerns described herein,” the lawsuit states.

Yaeger and Schuler bought new Subarus in 2012 and 2013 respectively, after which they independently noticed their new vehicles were consuming engine oil at an “unacceptable” rate. They were forced to add oil to their cars between Subaru’s recommended engine oil change intervals in order to avoid engine failure, the complaint states.

Further, the lawsuit states that both plaintiffs took their vehicles to their Subaru dealerships for repairs, but despite extensive servicing, the Subarus continued to burn through oil rapidly.

The plaintiffs allege Subaru has known of the oil consumption defect in model years 2011-14 Subaru Forester 2.5L, 2013 Legacy 2.5L, 2013 Outback 2.5L, 2012-13 Impreza 2.0L and 2013 XV Crosstek 2.0L vehicles, for some time, through numerous complaints received from dealers and consumers through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Regardless, the lawsuit states, Subaru actively concealed the defect from consumers. The company has also “routinely refused” to repair the vehicles without charge, according to the complaint.

Subaru updated its online information to acknowledge that certain vehicles run through oil quickly, but has not recalled the vehicles to repair the defect, offered its customers a suitable repair or replacement free of charge or offered to reimburse customers who have paid to repair the cars, the lawsuit states.

The putative class alleges violations of New Jersey and California consumer protection laws, breach of express warranty, common law fraud and more. The complaint asks the judge to certify a nationwide class of current or former owners or lessees of the affected vehicles, in addition to California, Florida and New Jersey state subclasses.

The lawsuit is Yaeger et al. v. Subaru of America Inc. et al., case number 1:14-cv-04490, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Got it?

Overworked and underpaid… The grocery chain Kroger Co. and several of its units are facing a wages and overtime class action lawsuit filed by its delivery drivers in California. According to the putative class in the Kroger lawsuit, the workers weren’t fully paid for the many overtime hours they worked. Know this story?

Defendants Kroger and its units Ralphs Grocery Co., Foods Co. and two Food 4 Less entities allegedly failed to pay more than 1,000 drivers, dispatchers and delivery-support staff wages and overtime, while requiring them to work extra hours the complaint states.

Lead plaintiff, Jesse Blanco, alleges the stores “routinely required plaintiffs to work more than eight hours per day and, in some instances, more than twelve hours per day, and more than forty hours per workweek and, in some instances, seven days for extended, ongoing time periods.” Further, Blanco claims the companies cut wages by rounding time; “failed and refused to pay overtime”; and cheated the workers of meal and rest breaks required by California law.

FYI—the putative class includes all hourly delivery drivers, dispatchers and support staff employed by the stores in the four years leading up to the complaint. The plaintiffs are asking for a permanent injunction, compensatory damages and a variety of penalties. Yeah Baby!

Top Settlements

Sony singing the “I will pay you” blues…to the tune of $15 million—at least according to a preliminary settlement reached in the pending data breach class action lawsuit. If approved, the settlement would see $15 million in games and online currency made available to class members as well as identity theft reimbursement. The lawsuit was brought by PlayStation Network (PSN) users affected by a massive 2011 Sony Corp. data breach.

Eligible class members include all persons residing in the US who had a PlayStation Network account or sub-account, a Qriocity account, or a Sony Online Entertainment account at any time prior to May 15, 2011, when it was revealed that hackers had broken into Sony’s network and obtained data on as many as 31 million account holders.

According to the Sony settlement agreement, Sony will provide affected consumers with “various benefits,” depending on the type of accounts they had and if they can prove that their data was misused, to resolve the dispute over the 2011 breach.

Following the discovery of the data breach, Sony offered its PSN users free identity theft protection, among other benefits. However, under the terms of the settlement agreement any class members who didn’t take that deal can choose two items from a mix of games, online display themes and a three-month subscription to Sony’s PlayStation Plus service, with a cap set at $6 million.

For those class members who did take Sony’s initial package, they will receive one of the items, with a cap set at $4 million. Class members who weren’t part of PSN but had accounts for a different Sony gaming service will get $4.50 of in-game currency, with a $4 million cap.

Sony agreed to reimburse up to $2,500 per class member for the identity theft claims, up to $1 million. It also allowed users to transfer any unused online currency into cash and give some class members a one-month subscription to its music streaming service.

Sony customers that fall within the class definition will be automatically bound to the settlement unless they opt out. Class members who wish to opt out from the settlement class have 21 days prior to the date of the final fairness hearing in May to notify the court of their intention to opt-out.

The case is In re: Sony Gaming Networks and Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, case number 3:11-md-02258, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

Ok Folks—We’re Done Here—Have a wonderful weekend—we’ll see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 7.11.14 – Kindred Healthcare, Suave, Overdraft Fees

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top lawsuits include Kindred Healthcare, Suave and Comerica Overdraft Fees.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Kindred Healthcare, is not taking care of its own… according to California wage and hour class action lawsuit filed this week. You probably know the song sheet by heart by now—but permit me a wee refresher. KH and its affiliates, Professional Healthcare at Home, LLC and NP Plus, LLC are accused, by its caregiver employees in California, of failing to pay minimum wage and overtime (really?), and violating meal and rest period laws.

FYI—Kindred is one of the largest post-acute health service providers in the US.

Ginger Rogers, (not making that up) one of the named plaintiffs in the Kindred Healthcare class action, said “I believe they didn’t pay me all my wages when I was assisting a Kindred client in her home. And when I went to care for another client in a facility, I had to work long shifts without any meal or rest breaks.” Emma Delores Hawkins, another named plaintiff, was allegedly denied overtime pay for work performed, according to the complaint.

This one’s just out the gate. It will be interesting to see how it grows…

Top Settlements

Now it’s Unilever’s turn to have a bad hair day. The chemical manufacturer and maker of Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30-Day Smoothing Kit and defendant in a defective products class action lawsuit, received final approval of a $10.2 million settlement, which some of the plaintiffs thought to be too low. But—as the judge pointed out—they are free to drop out and file their own lawsuits. The class action alleged that Unilever PLC’s Suave Keratin hair products caused consumers to suffer hair loss and/or scalp injury. Really not the desired effect, I’m betting.

The backstory—the Suave lawsuit was filed in August 2012, claiming Unilever made false and misleading statements about the safety of the Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30-Day Smoothing Kit, which was recalled in May 2012. Specifically, the complaint asserts that Unilever failed to inform consumers that the hair product posed an unreasonable risk of hair and/or scalp injury. The lawsuit is Sidney Reid, et al. v. Unilever United States Inc., et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-06058, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Under the terms of the Suave Keratin settlement, a Reimbursement fund of approximately $250,000 and an Injury fund of about $10 million will be created. The Injury Fund will compensate Class Members who were injured by the Suave Keratin product for medical expenses and emotional distress associated with their Smoothing Kit injuries. Class Members who suffered Smoothing Kit injuries may submit a claim for reimbursement ranging from $40 to $25,000, depending on the extent of their injuries and proof of their treatment expenses.

Class Members who did not suffer an injury from the Smoothing Kit are eligible for a reimbursement of up to $10.

Keratin Suave class members include all persons who purchased the Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30-Day Smoothing Kit in the United States for personal or home use before February 17, 2014.

For detailed information about the settlement, and filing a claim, visit www.Suave30DaySmoothingKitLawsuit.com.

We haven’t seen one of these in a while… Final approval has been granted in the $14.5 million settlement of consumer fraud class action involving overdraft fees charged by Comerica Bank NA. The class action involved people who had been charged overdraft fees on their Comerica Bank accounts between 2004 and 2010. The Comerica overdraft class action lawsuit alleged the bank posted debit card transactions in dollar amounts ordered from highest to lowest so as to maximize the number of overdraft fees it could levy against its customers.

According to the lawsuit, rather than declining transactions that would put a customer into overdraft, Comerica authorized the transactions, subsequently processing them in an order that would increase the banks’ overdraft revenue.

Eligible class members include anyone who held a Comerica bank account in Arizona, California, Florida, Michigan or Texas and incurred one or more overdraft fees as a result of Comerica’s non-consecutive posting of transactions between 2004 and 2010. Specific class periods vary by state.

The Class Periods by state are:

• For Settlement Class Members who opened accounts in Arizona, the period from February 18, 2004 through August 15, 2010.

• For Settlement Class Members who opened accounts in California, the period from February 18, 2006 through August 15, 2010.

• For Settlement Class Members who opened accounts in Florida, the period from February 18, 2005 through August 15, 2010.

• For Settlement Class Members who opened accounts in Michigan, the period from February 18, 2004 through August 15, 2010.

• For Settlement Class Members who opened accounts in Texas, the period from February 18, 2006 through August 15, 2010.

Eligible class members must have had two or more Overdraft Fees caused by debits posted to their accounts on a single day during the time period listed above. For further information on the Comerica class action lawsuit settlement, and to download forms, visit: http://comericabankoverdraftsettlement.com/Home.aspx

The case is Simmons v. Comerica Bank NA, Case No. 10-cv-22959, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. It is part of multidistrict litigation known as In re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, Case No. 1:09-md-02036-JLK, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Ok Folks—We’re Done Here—Have a wonderful weekend—we’ll see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 7.4.14 – Adobe, Fluidmaster, J. Crew

The week’s top class action lawsuit and settlement stories–4th of July edition! Top stories include Adobe Creative Cloud, Fluidmaster and J. Crew.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Heads up all you Designers and Creatives out there…Adobe Creative Suite billing may just be a little too creative. Adobe got his with a consumer fraud class action lawsuit this week alleging the software maker charges an illegal termination penalty for cloud subscription access to its blockbuster applications such as Photoshop and Illustrator.

Filed by Scotty Mahlum, in California Federal Court, the Adobe lawsuit alleges that Adobe’s early termination fee, which can add up to hundreds of dollars, violates California’s Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. It sure seems to be a blatant cash grab—opinion here…

“[The fee] is designed to maintain recurring revenue by preventing subscribers from cancelling, rather than to compensate for any damages sustained by [Adobe],” Mahlum said. [If Adobe] “has suffered any damage upon early cancellation, the ETFs are not a reasonable measure or approximation of such damages.”

According to the complaint, a monthly subscription for access to Adobe’s complete cloud suite is $49.99 or $9.99 per month for access to individual programs. But if consumers end their contracts early, Adobe charges them 50 percent of the remaining value of the contract. “Because Adobe has no expenses after a subscriber downloads Creative Cloud Software to a computer, 50% of the remaining contract obligation is a windfall for Adobe,” the lawsuit states.

The Creative Cloud programs include Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Premiere, After Effects, Audition, Dreamweaver and other programs.

The subscription contract is a take-it-or-leave-it proposition and gives consumers no opportunity for term negotiation, the Adobe lawsuit contends. Mahlum alleges Adobe phased out the option to buy copies of the software outright in the spring of 2013 and that he signed up for a complete plan in October but canceled it in March.

Mahlum seeks a permanent injunction against collection of the ETFs and wants the company to pay back all ETFs it has collected from the class, which he says should include all current or former subscribers in the U.S. who were charged the fee.

In a December earnings report, Adobe revealed it had ended the 2013 fiscal year with 1.4 million Creative Cloud paid subscriptions, an increase of 1.1 million over the course of the year. The lawsuit contends that Adobe’s revenue from the cloud model jumped from $160 million in the second quarter of 2012 to $255 million in the second quarter of 2013.

The case is Mahlum v. Adobe Systems Inc., case number 5:14-cv-02988, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

It would appear there’s Nothing Fluid about this Crap… at least according to some very pissed off consumers who filed consumer fraud class-action lawsuit against Fluidmaster Inc., this week. The lawsuit claims that the plumbing product and toilet repair company knowingly sold defective toilet connectors that spontaneously broke, causing millions of dollars in property damage at homeowners’ expense. Nice!!!

The Fluidmaster complaint, filed April 24, 2014, in the US District Court for the Central District of California, states that Fluidmaster elected to sell faulty plastic toilet connectors even when it was mechanically and financially feasible for the company to sell an existing, safer alternative design. According to the lawsuit, more than a million defective toilet connectors were sold in the US. Ok—that’s a lot of folks. That’s a lot of damage.

Apparently, upon realizing that its plastic toilet connectors were routinely cracking, leaking and causing significant damage, Fluidmaster responded by lowering its 10-year warranty to five years, according to the lawsuit. The complaint’s two named plaintiffs experienced massive property damage after their Fluidmaster toilet connectors spontaneously failed. One of the plaintiffs, Brian Kirsch, received a call while on vacation from his garbage collector informing Kirsch that water was spilling from an upstairs window of his home and raining into his garage. Kirsch’s home had to be gutted and completely renovated while he and his family were displaced.

Due to the material and design of the toilet connector, the plastic was susceptible to bending with weight and pressure over time, according to the suit. The complaint also cites the company’s poor instructions and warnings that failed to provide the customer with sufficient information to safely and properly install the connectors.

After reducing the product’s warranty, Fluidmaster began to redesign the toilet connector in mid-2011, marketing and selling a new, reinforced connector. According to the complaint, the company never publicized that the product was redesigned and did not recall the defective products from its distribution networks. It also did not notify property owners that the defective products could spontaneously fail and should be replaced, keeping the defective products in use, according to the complaint. That’s just plain shitty (couldn’t resist!)

Top Settlements

J. Crew to pony up for Illegal Zip Code Collection….Yup—a preliminary settlement has been approved in a zip code collection class action lawsuit pending against J. Crew Group Inc. The lawsuit alleged the retailer unlawfully collected customers’ ZIP codes during credit card purchases and used the information to send unsolicited marketing materials to those customers.

According to the terms of the J. Crew settlement, J Crew will provide $20 vouchers to eligible class and a $3,000 award to the class representative, lead plaintiff Lauren Miller, who alleged the company began sending her unsolicited junk mail after she made two credit card purchases in 2011 and 2012. Prior to providing her ZIP code during those transactions, she hadn’t received any promotional materials, according to the complaint.

Miller had urged the judge to approve the settlement earlier in the month, telling the judge that the settlement sufficiently covered the damages stemming from J. Crew’s allegedly improper ZIP code collection.

“The action seeks to redress J. Crew’s alleged unlawful invasion of its customers’ privacy and its alleged violation of the laws of the commonwealth of Massachusetts designed to protect consumers’ rights to be free from intrusive corporate data collection and marketing. The settlement substantially achieves this goal,” Miller said in a memorandum.

The settlement will put to bed claims of the proposed class of Massachusetts customers who used a credit card at the retailer’s stores after June 20, 2009, and whose ZIP code was subsequently recorded. J. Crew denies any wrongdoing.

The class action is Miller et al v J. Crew Group, case number 1:13-cv-11487, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Ok Folks—Happy Fourth of July—Have a wonderful weekend—and we’ll see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 6.27.14 – Ford, Caterpillar, Kashi

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top stories this week include Ford, Caterpillar and Kashi.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

It was Ford’s turn this week…its turn to face the class action blues…yessiree—they got hit with a consumer fraud lawsuit alleging personal harm from what appears to be a rather serious design defect.

The Ford lawsuit was filed in Florida by Ford Explorer owners and lessors alleging the automaker mislead consumers about the vehicles’ exhaust system that exposes passengers to dangerous levels of carbon monoxide.

Filed by lead plaintiff Angela Sanchez-Knutson, the complaint alleges that when the air conditioning is on in the Ford Motor Co. sport utility vehicle, the exhaust leaks into the passenger cabin of the cars. This poses a health risk to those in the cars and a safety risk to people on the road.

Sanchez-Knutson further claims that she and her daughter suffer from chronic headaches as a result of exposure to dangerous levels of carbon monoxide in her 2013 Ford Explorer. She alleges she took the car to the local dealership for repair numerous times because of a sulfuric smell. However, at no point in time was she informed that the odor actually signified exposure to the gas.

An internal technical service bulletin distributed by Ford to its dealerships showed that the automaker was aware that certain Explorer models’ exhaust systems were leaking into the cabins of the cars when the air conditioning was turned on, the complaint states.

The bulletin provided dealerships with instructions on how handle the smell in the vehicles but did not specify that carbon monoxide was seeping into the cabins or provide any remedies to protect consumers from the risk of exposure, according to the lawsuit.

“Ford knew or should have known that the 2011 through 2013 model year Ford Explorers were dangerous and defective such that drivers and passengers of those vehicles may be exposed to carbon monoxide and other dangerous gases while the vehicles are in operation,” the complaint states.

The complaint alleges Ford violated the vehicles’ express and limited warranties, since the contracts guaranteed that the vehicles were defect-free. All of the affected vehicles are still under warranty with the company, the lawsuit states.

As a result of filing the lawsuit, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced that it is looking into the exhaust allegations. The agency said it was aware of complaints involving the vehicles but that it had not initiated a formal investigation.

The lawsuit seeks to certify a class of all consumers in Florida who purchased or leased the 2011 to 2013 Explorer models. The suit is Sanchez-Knutson v. Ford Motor Company, case number 0:14-cv-61344, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Exhausted yet? Wait–there’s more! Caterpillar Inc. also got hit with a class action lawsuit over claims that its heavy-duty on-highway diesel engines, designed to adhere to 2007 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emissions regulations, contain a design defect that requires extensive repairs and replacements. Nice!! This is all sounding so familiar!

The Caterpillar lawsuit alleges Caterpillar’s 2007-2010 model C-13 and C-15 engines have defective exhaust emission controls which make the vehicles unreliable for transportation. Further, despite repeated repairs, they cannot be permanently fixed.

According to the complaint, the engines’ exhaust emission control systems regularly detect warning and shutdown readings from the software used to regulate and monitor certain components, causing the vehicle to require authorized exhaust emission control diagnoses that eventually are unable to rectify the problem.

“This caused plaintiff and class members to incur significant damages in the diminution of the value of their vehicles, but also in the cost of replacing the … engines with other EPA 2007 Emission Standard compliant heavy-duty, on-highway, diesel engines.” the lawsuit states.

K Double D Inc, lead plaintiff in the class action, alleges it purchased a vehicle featuring the 2007 heavy-duty on-highway diesel engine that suffered engine and regeneration problems, which resulted in thousands of dollars in damages to the company.

Further, K Double D claims that despite extensive repair work, the engine experienced repeated instances of warning lights illuminating, engine derating and shutdown, regeneration failure and more, as well as other failures that prevented it from working properly.

“Despite defendant’s numerous attempts to correct the … failures, the … engine exhaust emission controls do not function as required under all operating conditions, and will not do so for the expected life of the vehicle,” the lawsuit states.

The lead plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all vehicle owners and lessees who purchased or leased a vehicle containing the engines. The lawsuit alleges claims of breach of express and implied warranty, negligence, unfair and deceptive acts and more.

The suit is K Double D Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc., case number 1:14-cv-01760, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

Top Settlements

Heads up all you California crunchy granolas! A settlement has been reached in a consumer fraud class action lawsuit pending against Kashi Co. According to the terms of the settlement, a fund of $5 million will be established by Kashi, which will resolve claims of false advertising, the grounds for the lawsuit.

Ok—so I think we know the tune here—the Kashi lawsuit, Astiana v. Kashi Co., Case No. 3:11-cv-01967-H-BGS, alleged the food manufacturer misled consumers by claiming that certain of its products are “All Natural” and “Nothing Artificial” even though they contained synthetic ingredients, such as pyridoxine, hydrochloride, calcium pantothenate and/or hexane-processed soy ingredients. Got it?

Class Members of the Kashi class action settlement include California residents who purchased certain Kashi products between August 24, 2007 and May 1, 2014.

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

Week Adjourned: 6.20.14 – GM, Petco, Best Buy

Top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week! Top stories include GM, Petco and Best Buy

Top Class Action Lawsuits

What’s your GM Vehicle Worth these Days? Less than it was a few months ago—according to a new class action lawsuit filed against General Motors Co., (GM) this week. The GM lawsuit follows the latest round of GM Recalls, alleging the automotive manufacturer’s reputation has been so badly damaged that even vehicles not included in the recalls have depreciated in value. The lawsuit is seeking in excess of $10 billion on behalf of all GM vehicle owners. The recalls allegedly constitute 25 percent more than what would be seen in a normal year, and almost 20 times more than the number or recalls issued during the same period in 2013, the lawsuit claims.

According to the GM lawsuit, GM marketed its vehicles as safe and reliable which mislead consumers into purchasing or leasing their cars, because the company was, at the same time, intentionally concealing known defects and valuing cost-cutting over safety, eventually leading all GM vehicles to depreciate in value due to its now-ruined brand.

“GM enticed … all GM vehicle purchasers to buy vehicles that have now diminished in value as the truth about the GM brand has come out, and a stigma has attached to all GM-branded vehicles,” the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit claims that the forced recalls of over 17 million vehicles has severely damaged the company’s reputation. According to the lawsuit there are about 40 different recalls covering 35 separate defects. All the recalls took place in the first few months of 2014.

“GM’s now highly publicized campaign of deception in connection with the ignition-switch defect sent shockwaves throughout the country, and jump-started the ever-burgeoning erosion of consumer confidence in the GM brand,” the complaint states.

The suit alleges that the 2010 and 2011 Chevrolet Camaro models have both been diminished between February, before the recalls began, and now, depreciating $2,000 in value. Further, the 2009 Pontiac Solstice went down $2,900 in value during that time, according to the lawsuit. According to the complaint, GM’s vehicles have depreciated in value because “no reasonable consumer” will pay the price they would have paid when the GM brand meant “safety and success.”

If certified, the class will represent GM consumers nationwide who own or lease a new or used vehicle sold between July 10, 2009, and April 1, as well as consumers who sold their GM vehicles at a “diminished price” on or after April 1. The class excludes consumers who own or lease certain Chevrolet Cobalt, Chevrolet HHR, Pontiac G5s, Saturn Ions and Saturn Sky vehicles.

The suit also seeks to certify a California subclass of GM vehicle owners and lessors, in addition to those who sold their cars at depreciated value.

The suit is Andrews et al v. General Motors LLC, case number 5:14-cv-1239, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

PetCode Problems? Heads up…Petco customers—they got zapped with Zip code class action this week. According to the proposed Petco class action lawsuit the animal supplies retailer is in violation of Massachusetts state law through their collection of customers’ zip codes.

According to lead plaintiffs Jeffrey Scolnick and Leah Crohn,Petco would not allow them to complete credit card purchases without their first providing the retailer with their ZIP codes, even though the store is not required by credit card issuers to collect this information from customers. Consequently, the plaintiffs allege they have received unwanted marketing materials from Petco. Further, they allege the store has sold their information to third parties without their consent and for marketing purposes.

“Petco recorded plaintiffs’ ZIP codes into an electronic credit card transaction form,” the complaint states. “Petco continues to store plaintiffs’ personal identification information, including plaintiffs’ name, ZIP code and credit card number, in its databases.”

The lawsuit, entitled, Scolnick et al. v. Petco Animal Supplies Store Inc., case number 1:14-cv-12547, states that Massachusetts’ high court has determined that ZIP codes constitute personal information under the Massachusetts Unfair Trade Practices Act, which prohibits the collection of personal information by retailers. Consumers place a high value on the privacy of their personal identifiable information, the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit seeks to represent all customers from whom Petco requested personally identifiable information when making a credit card purchase in Massachusetts, according to the complaint. The plaintiffs said they do not yet know the potential number of class members.

Top Settlements

Best Buy done for less than Best Practices. Plaintiffs in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act TCPA class action lawsuit against Best Buy have finalized a $4.55 million settlement deal. The lawsuit, with a Washington state class of 439,000 members, and a national class of 42,000 members, was initially filed in April 2010 by Michael Chesbro who alleged Best Buy automatically signed customers up for its Rewards Zone program without their knowledge when they purchased electronics under a payment plan. Best Buy then made unsolicited phone calls to those consumers with information about that program.

According to the terms of the Best Buy settlement, filed June 9 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, class members will receive their pro rata share from the settlement fund, once court-awarded fees, litigation and administrative costs and the class representative incentive award have been deducted. This will leave an estimated $3.2 million for distribution among class members, equally between $50 and $100 per call.

Michael Chesbro is to receive a $5,000 service award for services he has rendered to the classes by stepping forward to bring this case, according to the settlement papers.

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

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

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

Top Class Action Lawsuits

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

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

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

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

Um—I’m lovin’ It!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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