Class Action Archive
Week Adjourned: 4.6.12 – Lay’s Potato Chips, Groupon, Medtronic
April 6th, 2012. By LucyC
Top Class Actions
Potato Chips are Healthy! Seriously–it’s time for the shovel on this one folks. A federal consumer fraud class action lawsuit filed against PepsiCo and its subsidiary Frito-Lay this week, claims they mislead customers by “misbranding” their potato chips as healthy because they contain “0 grams of Trans Fat.” Call me old-fashioned, but I think that’s a bit of leap. Like—what exactly happened in the potato-chip-making process that suddenly makes the king of junk food healthy?
Not much, it seems. The Frito-Lay lawsuit contends the advertising does not point out that every 50 chips contains more than 13g of fat. Well, hello!
Specifically, the class action lawsuit accuses Frito-Lay of violating federal and California laws that require companies to provide truthful, accurate information on the labels of packaged foods.
“As consumer preferences have begun to favor healthier options, Defendants have chosen to implement a health and wellness strategy to reposition their products as a healthy option,” the Frito-Lay fraud class action lawsuit states. “Defendants recognize that health claims drive food sales and actively promote the purported health benefits of their Misbranded Food Products, notwithstanding the fact that such promotion violates California and federal law.”
Among the deceptive health claims included in the Lay’s potato chips advertising are that the chips are “prepared with healthier oils,” that Frito-Lay’s snack chips “contain 0 grams of Trans Fat, are low in saturated fat and cholesterol-free,” and that the chips contain “good stuff like potatoes, which naturally contain vitamin C and essential minerals.”
Ok. Nothing short of an Easter miracle is going to make potato chips healthy. Come on.
The consumer fraud class action also notes that Frito-Lay tells consumers that “Snacking is an important part of a healthy diet” and that “Snacks may benefit special populations including people with diabetes, children and adolescents, older adults, and pregnant women.” At a loss for words at this point.
According to the lawsuit, “If a manufacturer is going to make a claim on a food label, the label must meet certain legal requirements that help consumers make informed choices and ensure that they are not misled.” However, PepsiCo and Frito-Lay “have made, and continue to make, false and deceptive claims” in violation of state and federal law. Furthermore, lawyers for the plaintiffs contend, “Misbranded food is worthless as a matter of law, and purchasers of misbranded food are entitled to a refund of their purchase price.”
The Frito-Lay consumer fraud class action lawsuit is brought on behalf of all California consumers who, have purchased Frito-Lay potato chips labeled “0 grams Trans Fat” but which contained more than 13 grams of fat per 50 grams and purchased those chips within the past four years.
The lawsuit is seeking damages, restitution or disgorgement, as well as a cease and desist order banning the companies from selling their allegedly misbranded food products. (Just in case the collective consumer wisdom accumulated over the past 50 years fails to kick in?)
Raw Deal of the Day? Somewhere in Groupon’s tagline, the word beleaguered should appear. To say this company is beset with lawsuits would be an understatement. This week, it’s a securities class action alleging it released “materially false and misleading statements” regarding its financial results. The Groupon lawsuit seeks class-action status on behalf of shareholders who acquired Groupon shares between November 4, 2011 and March 30, 2012.
The lawsuit also claims Groupon’s revenue and growth were overstated, and the company “was not nearly resistant to competition as suggested by defendants.”
The fellow who filed the suit, Fan Zhang, claims that Groupon “failed to disclose negative trends” that would have affected its IPO pricing of 35 million shares of common stock at $20 per share.
Short version—Fan Zhang reportedly bought 3,000 shares of Groupon at an estimated $61,800 in February, then sold those shares in March at a $9,000 loss. Ouch! The lawsuit goes on to state “Groupon’s internal controls were so poor and inadequate that Groupon’s reported results were not reliable.”
The defendants include Groupon Chief Executive Andrew Mason and several banks that helped take the company public, including the lead IPO underwriters Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. Um. None of those banks are strangers to lawsuits. Oh well, if you’re heading into a lawsuit like this, best to have some experienced people with you…
Top Settlements
And While we’re on the Subject of Groupon… they agreed to settle a consumer fraud class action this week to the tune of $85.million. The Groupon lawsuit, filed by disgruntled customers, (who else?) alleges that the expiration dates on Groupon coupons are illegal.
The proposed settlement applies to anyone who purchased Groupon vouchers before December 1, 2011. Under the terms of the settlement, the class members can either redeem the coupons beyond their expiration date or, if they are unable to do so, obtain a refund from the $8.5 million fund. Residents in some states can seek refunds only for vouchers sold after Aug. 22, 2010.
And, for the next three years, also as part of the settlement, Groupon has agreed not to sell more than 10 percent of its daily deals with an expiration date of less than 30 days after their issue date.
According to Bloomberg.com, the settlement pertains to no less than 17 lawsuits filed against the daily deals dealer, which were subsequently consolidated. The plaintiffs claimed Groupon and various retailers violate federal and state consumer protection laws with improper expiration dates and other provisions for the vouchers, such as the requirement that they be used in a single transaction.
“Groupon effectively creates a sense of urgency among consumers to quickly purchase ‘groupon’ gift certificates by offering ‘daily deals’ for a short amount of time,” according to the first lawsuit which was filed in 2011. “Consumers therefore feel pressured and are rushed into buying the gift certificates and unwittingly become subject to the onerous sales conditions.”
New Meaning to Graft? And then there’s Medtronic. What can we say about these guys—that’s good? Not much really. Although this news is good—for investors. The medical equipment company has agreed to pony up $85 million to settle investors’ claims regarding stock fraud.
The securities class action lawsuit claims that the investors were misled by company leaders on the off-label uses of the company’s highly controversial Medtronic Infuse bone graft. This product is troubling from a number of angles.
The Medtronic stock fraud settlement still awaits final documentation and court approval.
The lawsuit, filed in 2008 by the Minneapolis Firefighters Relief Association, claims that Medtronic’s officers and directors misled investors through a nearly decade-long campaign to illegally promote Infuse for uses not approved by the Food & Drug Administration.
Sales and future growth of the graft were “driven by misconduct that invited, and ultimately brought about, the scrutiny of federal regulators and an abrupt decline in sales,” according to a case brief by attorneys for the investors. As a result, revenues declined, so did the value of shares, which fell to $31.60 from $57.86.
And on that happy note—that’s a wrap. Happy Good Friday everyone.
Wait—is that a bunny on my lawn?
LAS Newsletter: Top Legal News, Free Delivery, Every Week
April 2nd, 2012. By AbiK
Sign up for our free weekly newsletter to keep up on the latest legal news: class action lawsuits, lawsuit settlements, mass tort litigation, securities fraud lawsuits, and more.
The LawyersandSettlements.com newsletter is published weekly, and delivered free to your inbox.
This week’s top legal news: class action lawsuits for CarMax, GoDaddy, Dial Soap, Medicus Golf, Reebok Toning Shoes, Google Privacy, Yo-Plus Yogurt, Harley Davidson, and the Honda Hybrid.
Also, an update on Yasmin and Yaz lawsuits—what’s going on with talk of Bayer Yaz settlements and what does it mean for claimants?
Read all about it—and more—every week. Sign up now!
Week Adjourned: 3.30.12 (Barefoot Running, LG Electronics, Deutsche Bank)
March 30th, 2012. By LucyC
Top Class Actions
Barefoot running benefits nothing more than barefaced lies? Well, it remains to be seen, but certainly there’s doubt over its merits—though no doubts re: its ugliness—and allegations of injury resulting from the barefoot running shoe. (Is it really a shoe?) A consumer fraud class action lawsuit was filed this week against Vibram USA Inc and Vibram FiveFingers LLC, alleging the company used deceptive statements about the health benefits of barefoot running.
Filed on behalf of Florida resident Valerie Bezdek, the Barefoot Running Shoes lawsuit alleges that 1) health benefits claims Vibram FiveFingers has used to promote the shoes are deceptive; 2) that FiveFingers may increase injury risk as compared to running in conventional running shoes, and even when compared to running barefoot; 3) that there are no well-designed scientific studies that support FiveFingers claims.
“Given that Defendant’s advertising and marketing equates barefoot running with running in FiveFingers, Defendant’s uniform deceptive statements about barefoot running are also deceptive statements about Five Fingers,” the lawsuit claims.
The lawsuit also states that sales of the Vibram FiveFingers shoes have grown an average of 300 percent a year for the last five years and approached $70 million in 2011. That’s certainly not chump change.
LG TV lifespans less than expected. You know, you could make the argument that defective products help the market economy—something breaks—you go buy a new one—right? Well, not according to some disgruntled LG consumers. They filed a federal class action lawsuit against LG Electronics USA, alleging that the electronics manufacturer’s plasma and LCD Television sets are defective, impacting the lifespan of the televisions. And they are not prepared to go out and buy new sets. Can you blame them?
The LG Electronics class action lawsuit seeks to represent anyone else who purchased certain defective LG televisions in the state of Nevada. Class televisions include but are not limited to models 32LC2D, 37LC2D, 42LC2D, 42PC3D, 42PC3DV, 47LC7DF and 50PC3D.
The lawsuit alleges that the televisions are defective in that they contain internal components called printed wiring boards (also known as printed circuit boards) that prematurely fail during normal operation of the televisions (the “defect”). The defect, which was present upon delivery and which manifests itself over time, ultimately results in the failure of the televisions themselves well before the end of their expected useful life, and rendering the televisions unsuitable for their principal and intended purpose. I’m guessing that’s watching TV…
Top Settlements
Danke schön, Deutsche Bank (not). It’s the financial mess that never ends—though you have to admit, it’s given the document shredding industry cause for a few high-five’s… A preliminary settlement was announced this week in the lawsuit pending against Deutsche Bank—with the German financial house agreeing to pony up a paltry $32.5 million to settle claims that it lied about the quality of home loans underlying the securities it sold. (Well Hel-lo. And where in the settlements line-up is this one?)
The investors that sued include the Massachusetts Bricklayers and Masons Trust Funds. They have filed a motion for preliminary approval of the Deutsche Bank settlement in federal court in Central Islip, New York.
“The proposed settlement will provide a substantial monetary benefit to the settlement class,” court papers state.
According to the lawsuit, and as reported by Bloomberg.com, in 2006, the plaintiffs bought from Deutsche Bank so-called pass-through certificates that gave them the right to the payments on the underlying home loans. The offering documents contained misstatements about loan underwriting standards, property appraisals, loan-to-value ratios and credit ratings on the certificates, according to the complaint. At the same time Deutsche Bank was selling the securities, it was profiting from credit-default swaps by wagering that loans like those underlying the certificates would decline in value, the investors claim.
The lawsuit also states “More than 49 percent of the loans underlying one certificate series were delinquent or foreclosed on,” the investors said. The tranche the Massachusetts Bricklayers and Masons Trust Funds, the lead plaintiff, bought “has already realized cumulative principal losses.”
The investors also claim that had a sale been done in 2008 when the lawsuit was filed, they would have netted between 70 and 80 cents on the dollar. “The certificates are no longer marketable at prices anywhere near the price paid,” the lawsuit states. So I guess $32.5 million doesn’t look so bad now.
OK–That’s a wrap. Happy Friday everyone–Mickey Mouse says it’s Martini Time! (and may one of us hit #MegaMillions!)
Reebok Toning Shoes Settlement Claim Forms Due Soon
March 30th, 2012. By AbiK
If you were one of those fitness lovers who drank the Reebok toning shoe Kool-Aid® only to find out there was a Reebok Toning Shoe Class Action Lawsuit, well, the deadline to get your claim form in for the Reebok Toning Shoe Settlement is fast upon us, so listen up!
Why was there a Reebok Toning Shoes Class Action Lawsuit in the first place?
Basically, false advertising—Reebok claimed their toning shoes and apparel would work wonders (surprise, surprise) and the folks who bought them felt otherwise; some even claimed they were injured by the shoes. Needless to say, Reebok denies all wrongdoing. The Court did not decide which side was right. Rather, the parties have decided to settle. So here we are.
Am I part of the Reebok Toning Shoes Class Action Lawsuit?
Darn right you are if you purchased any of the following from Reebok and/or its authorized retailers and wholesalers from December 5, 2008 through October 12, 2011, and meet any other qualifications specified on the settlement notice:
Reebok Toning Shoes (aka “Eligible Shoes”)
- EasyTone
- EasyTone Flip
- RunTone
- TrainTone
- JumpTone
- SimplyTone
- SlimTone
Reebok Toning Apparel (aka “Eligible Apparel”)
- EasyTone Capri
- EasyTone Pants
- EasyTone Shorts
- EasyTone Long Bra Top
- EasyTone Sleeveless Shirt
- EasyTone Short Sleeve Top
How much is the Reebok Toning Shoes Settlement worth?
Well, if you’re a member of the class (ie, you bought one of the eligible items above during the time mentioned above) you may be entitled to part of the settlement.
The Reebok Toning Shoe Settlement utilizes the same $25 million fund announced with the FTC on September 28, 2011, less the costs of notice and settlement administration, to pay claims to eligible Class Members relating to the purchase of eligible shoes and apparel. Court awarded attorneys’ fees and costs and class representative awards will be paid separately by Reebok. Reebok is also agreeing to make certain conduct changes.
The amount of payment to eligible Class Members will vary based on the product(s) purchased, the number and amounts claimed by all Class Members and other adjustments and deductions. The amount could be more (up to double), the same, or less than $50 for each pair of Eligible Shoes, $40 for each EasyTone Capri and EasyTone Pants, and $25 for each applicable shirt, bra top and top.
What do I need to do to get my Reebok Toning Shoe Settlement Payment?
You need to fill out and submit a claim form AT THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR’S WEBSITE HERE.
Your Reebok settlement claim form must be submitted electronically, or postmarked via mail, no later than April 10, 2012.
NOTE: If you already submitted a claim form after the FTC announcement, do not submit another claim form. You will also be sent a notice in the near future about the class action settlement.
The detailed notice for the Reebok toning shoe settlement describes how to file a claim and provides other important information.
Week Adjourned: 3.23.12 (GoDaddy, Yo-Plus Yogurt, Honda Hybrid)
March 23rd, 2012. By LucyC
Top Class Actions
Bit of a theme here this week—consumer fraud.
And this one is for anyone who has ever registered at least 5 domain names, thinking they were getting a bargain. GoDaddy, the Internet domain registration giant, is facing a possible consumer fraud class action lawsuit over its allegedly illegal charges for private registration services it advertises as being free.
The GoDaddy lawsuit claims that while GoDaddy offers free private domain registration to customers who register five or more domain names at the same time, when those customers go to renew their domains they are charged at the regular price.
The lawsuit, filed by Florida company WineStyles, states “By suggesting that the value of ‘FREE’ Private Registration was $9.99/yr, and that the ‘FREE’ service had ‘NO LIMIT!’, GoDaddy represented that the ‘FREE’ Private Registration services would be for the lifetime of the domain name, and Plaintiff (and on information and belief, the Class) believed this to be the case.”
The GoDaddy lawsuit also states that renewal notices sent to customers do not indicate that the privacy services would no longer be free upon renewal. And, the plaintiffs allege “Throughout the class period, GoDaddy provided wholly inadequate disclaimers on GoDaddy.com, which reiterated the ‘FREE’ offer but never mentioned to Customers that the Private Registration service would be automatically renewed by GoDaddy at the full price applicable to single domain name purchases, instead of for ‘FREE.’”
The proposed consumer fraud lawsuit is brought on behalf of customers who registered 5 or more domains, received the “free” private registration, and then were charged a fee for the proxy services when they renewed between March 19, 2006 and the present.
Yo! – Yogurt-eaters of California! You may be affected by a consumer fraud class action lawsuit facing General Mills that alleges the company falsely advertised the digestive health benefits of its Yo-Plus® brand of yogurt.
The lawsuit is called Johnson v. General Mills, Inc., Case No. 10-00061-CJC(ANx), and is in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Court decided this lawsuit should be a class action on behalf of a “Class,” or group of people, that could include you.
The lawsuit claims that General Mills falsely advertised its Yo-Plus® brand of yogurt by claiming that Yo-Plus® yogurt provides digestive health benefits when General Mills didn’t have a scientific basis to make that claim. The Yo-Plus® lawsuit seeks the return of money to the purchasers and a court order prohibiting the advertising. General Mills denies it did anything wrong and says its Yo-Plus® advertising was truthful and always substantiated by scientific evidence.
The Court has not decided whether the Class or General Mills is right. The attorneys for the Class will have to prove their claims at a trial.
The Class, on whose behalf the lawsuit is brought, is defined as “All persons who purchased Yo-Plus® in the State of California from the date Yo-Plus® was first sold in California to the date notice is first provided to the Class.” You may be a Class Member and, if so, you have a choice of whether to stay in the Class or opt out–Yo-Plus® class action lawsuit claim information can be found here at the claims administrator’s site.
If you are included, you have to decide whether to stay in the Class and be bound by whatever results, or ask to be excluded and keep your right to sue General Mills. There is no money available now and no guarantee that there will be. To find out more by reading about the Yo-Plus® lawsuit here.
Top Settlements
Happy Honda–remember that slogan? No? Well, if you’re part of the Honda Hybrid class action lawsuit you may become a Happy Honda Owner. Maybe. This week, a proposed settlement was approved by a San Diego Superior Court judge in a consumer fraud class-action lawsuit brought by Honda car owners over allegations that Honda hybrid vehicles were not as fuel-efficient as advertised and had problems with battery life.
The Honda Hybrid settlement affects some 460,000 owners and lessees of Honda Civic Hybrids and includes model year vehicles from 2003 to 2009. This is the Honda lawsuit, if you recall, in which Heather Peters of California opted out of the Honda class action lawsuit in order to sue Honda on her own.
According to the terms of the settlement, each class member is entitled to a $100 cash payment and a rebate certificate valued at $500 or $1,000.
Folks who make up a subclass of the lawsuit, who experienced car problems caused by a software upgrade, could receive an additional $100 and an additional $500 rebate, according to reports. Software upgrades–aren’t they just the bane of modern day existence. I digress.
In any event, court documents would indicate the total settlement could reach $461.3 million, and includes a net award of attorney fees of more than $8.1 million.
OK –That’s a wrap. Happy Friday everyone – see you at the bar!
Popular Categories
Archive by Category
- Accidents (RSS)
- Airlines (RSS)
- Asbestos Mesothelioma (RSS)
- Automotive (RSS)
- Celebrity (RSS)
- Complaints/Comments (RSS)
- Consumer Fraud (RSS)
- Court of Public Opinion (RSS)
- Criminal Law (RSS)
- Defective Products (RSS)
- DePuy ASR Hip Recall (RSS)
- Discrimination (RSS)
- Drugs/Medical (RSS)
- Elder Care Abuse (RSS)
- Employment (RSS)
- Environment (RSS)
- Financial (RSS)
- Food Illness (RSS)
- Human/Civil Rights (RSS)
- Insecurities (RSS)
- Insurance (RSS)
- Intellectual Property (RSS)
- Internet/E-commerce (RSS)
- Lawyers (RSS)
- Lawyers Giving Back (RSS)
- Lex Levity (RSS)
- Personal Injury (RSS)
- Pleading Ignorance (RSS)
- Real Estate (RSS)
- Securities (RSS)
- Settlement (RSS)
- Tort Reform (RSS)
- Totally Tortelicious (RSS)
- Veterans (RSS)
- Week Adjourned (RSS)
- Whistleblower (RSS)
Loading ...
