Defective Products Archive
Week Adjourned: 3.17.12 (Apple Siri, Plumb-PEX, Blue Sky)
March 17th, 2012. By LucyC
Top Class Actions
But Siriously Folks…Apple got hit with a potential consumer fraud class action lawsuit…Siri Siri Siriously…The lawsuit alleges the company’s voice assistant feature found on its latest iPhone, called Siri, doesn’t work as advertised. Oh dear. What is more frustrating than technology that doesn’t quite do what it’s supposed to do?
The Apple iPhone Siri lawsuit, filed in the Northern District of California, brought by iPhone 4S customer Frank Fazio, states “Promptly after the purchase of his iPhone 4S, [Fazio] realized that Siri was not performing as advertised,” the lawsuit says. “For instance, when [Fazio] asked Siri for directions to a certain place, or to locate a store, Siri either did not understand what Plaintiff was asking, or after a very long wait time, responded with the wrong answer.” Consequently, Fazio believes that Apple has overpromised on Siri’s capabilities.
“Notwithstanding Apple’s extensive multi-million dollar advertising campaign showcasing the Siri feature, and the fact that the iPhone 4S is more expensive than the iPhone 4, the iPhone 4S’s Siri feature does not perform as advertised, rendering the iPhone 4S merely a more expensive iPhone 4,” the lawsuit states.
The lawsuit alleges that Apple is in violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law, is in breach of warranty, and has committed both intentional and negligent misrepresentation. The suit seeks class action for other iPhone 4S owners, with the end goal of an injunction against Apple selling the device, as well as damages.
Top Settlements
For all of you who were victim to some dodgy plumbing fixtures–Plumb-PEX plumbing system— you will no doubt have been relieved to hear this week that a proposed settlement has been reached in the Plumb-PEX class action lawsuit. In fact, a notification program has begun to inform people and entities who own or owned a home, building or other structure containing a Plumb-PEX plumbing system, about the proposed settlement in a defective products class action lawsuit.
The settlement aims to resolve claims about whether Radiant Technology, Inc. and Uponor, Inc. (“RTI” or the “Defendants”) sold Plumb-PEX plumbing systems containing ASTM standard F1807 brass insert fittings and stainless steel clamps that may leak and cause damage to property. The Defendants deny all of the claims in the lawsuit, but have agreed to settle the case to avoid the cost and uncertainty of a trial.
The settlement includes a group of people called a “Class” or “Class members” and consists of anyone who owns or owned a property containing an RTI Plumb-PEX plumbing system containing ASTM standard F1807 brass insert fittings and stainless steel clamps (“RTI Plumb-PEX Plumbing System”) installed on or after May 15, 1999. Owners of systems that have: (a) had a leak in one or more of the system’s components, or (b) a water flow differential of 50% between the hot and cold lines that supply one or more fixtures may receive benefits from the settlement. People and entities that paid for damages or repairs related to a qualifying leak in an RTI Plumb-PEX Plumbing System may also submit claims.
The settlement will reimburse Class members for property damage caused by a qualifying leak in a system component. It will also provide repairs or possibly the replacement of an RTI Plumb-PEX Plumbing System in structures that have had two or more qualifying leaks. Eligible Class members will have at least 18 months to file a claim even if that time period expires after their warranty.
More information, and there is more information –including how to access a claim form, a picture of the RTI Plumb-PEX Plumbing System components and the Settlement Agreement–can be found here.
Did you buy a bit of Blue Sky? –The soda that is. If so, you may be interested to know that a federal court in San Francisco has preliminarily approved a consumer fraud class action settlement that provides 50% cash refunds on purchases of Blue Sky brand beverages.
The settlement applies to purchasers in the United States of Blue Sky brand beverages between May 16, 2002 and June 30, 2006 (the “Class”). It excludes purchases by retailers, distributors, resellers, and the judge handling the case.
Class members can submit a claim for refund of fifty percent of the price they paid. Refunds are limited to $100 per household (if Proof of Purchase is submitted) or $6 per household (if no Proof of Purchase is submitted). Proof of Purchase means an itemized retail receipt that shows a purchase of a Blue Sky beverage, and the date, place and amount of purchase.
The Blue Sky settlement resolves a lawsuit against Monster Beverage Corporation (formerly known as Hansen Natural Corporation), Monster Energy Company (formerly known as Hansen Beverage Company) and Blue Sky Natural Beverage Co. (collectively, “Hansen”).
Class members also have the right to object to the settlement by filing papers in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, California (Chavez v Blue Sky Natural Beverage Co., et al., N.D. Cal. 06-cv-06609-JSW) and serving those papers on the attorneys for Plaintiff and Defendants. Those who object may ask to appear at the hearing or hire their own attorney to appear.
To get the whole story, find out if you’re eligible o to download a claim form see our full post on the Blue Sky settlement.
OK –That’s a wrap. Happy St. Patrick’s Day everyone—see you at the bar!
Week Adjourned: 3.9.12 (Kardashians, Google & Brazilian Blowout)
March 9th, 2012. By LucyC
Top Class Actions
Call it Kardashian Klass…as in Klass Action. So does QuickTrim equal QuickBucks? Maybe. Consumers of QuickTrim diet supplement products filed a consumer fraud class action this week against the Kardashian sisters, Kim, Kourtney and Khloe, as well as the product manufacturer, Windmill Health Products, over allegations that the advertising claims are false and misleading. Filed in New York, the Kardashian QuickTrim lawsuit alleges the sisters made “unsubstantiated, false and misleading claims” in ads, interviews and tweets about the effectiveness of QuickTrim. According to the lawsuit, the FDA recently evaluated the product’s principal ingredient which was found to be caffeine. The lawsuit states “The FDA has in fact determined that ‘there are inadequate data to establish the general recognition of the safety and effectiveness’ of caffeine for the specified use of weight control.”
The lawsuit also claims that advertising for QuickTrim encourages people to purchase and use the entire product range or system which includes pills and cleanses, in order to experience increased effectiveness, but there is no evidence supporting the effectiveness of the products or that the entire range of products are more effective when used together. Damn!
Is Internet Privacy an Oxymoron? It’s certainly looking more like a ‘yes’ these days. The latest group to be outraged over tracking cookies has filed a class action against master of the Internet universe—Google—alleging the god of all things binary inserted code into its Google Ads. Surprised?
The internet privacy lawsuit claims that Google installed tracking cookies on iPhones, iPads and Mac computers, which, the federal class action alleges, is in violation of the Federal Wiretap Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Stored Electronics Communications Act.
Apparently, the tracking cookies on the Apple products were installed in order to harvest information about Internet searches, which, of course, it does without the consumer’s knowledge or authorization.
The lead plaintiff in lawsuit further claims that Google intentionally intercepted these electronic communications and then intentionally disclosed that information to his and other class members’ detriment.
“Google admits that it used code designed to ascertain whether Apple Devices utilizing Safari were also signed into Google, and, as a result, tracking cookies could be and were placed on Safari web browser on Apple Devices,” the lawsuit states.
FYI—the lawsuit is looking for an award of actual damages, Google’s profits or the statutory minimum of $1,000 per person, punitive damages, plus coverage of all the usual costs.
Top Settlements
Brazilian Blowout Settlement…Ok ladies and gents, for all of you who have used the infamous hair straightener, Brazilian Blowout, and suffered some unexpected and unwanted side effects—like nosebleeds—you may be interested to know that a preliminary settlement has been reached in the class action against Brazilian Blowout. The manufacturer has agreed to pay $4.5 million in damages, with consumers harmed by the product tentatively scheduled to receive a $35 check for each treatment for a maximum of three, and $75 for each bottle of the product purchased.
The tentative Blowout settlement also reportedly stipulates that Brazilian Blowout can no longer claim to be “formaldehyde free”. In late January, the company agreed to warn consumers that its products may emit formaldehyde gas in a settlement requiring honest advertising over its products, according to California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris. And, the company must place “CAUTION” stickers on all its bottles to inform stylists of the need for precautionary measures, report the presence of formaldehyde in its products to the Safe Cosmetics Program at the Dept. of Public Health and fully disclose its refund policies to consumers before the products are purchased.
OK –That’s a wrap. Happy Friday everyone—see you at the bar!
Week Adjourned: 3.2.12 (DePuy Hip Impant, Skechers Toners, OC Register)
March 2nd, 2012. By LucyC
Top Class Actions
Do you have—or know someone who has—a DePuy metal-on-metal hip replacement? You may be interested in this—a class action lawsuit—filed against DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., the manufacturer of metal-on-metal hip replacement implants. The lawsuit claims the devices cause “irreparable harm from undiagnosed metal disease.” And the purpose of the DePuy class action lawsuit is to get DePuy to pay for patients’ ongoing medical monitoring, which involves yearly orthopedic examinations, MRIs and blood and urine tests, according to the lawsuit.
Medical monitoring, you ask? Well, the science isn’t pretty, but the facts speak for themselves. According to an investigative report published in BMJ, formerly known as British Medical Journal, thousands of hip implants made by DePuy Orthopaedics have leaked high levels of toxic cobalt and chromium ions. These toxic metals have destroyed patients’ muscle and bone, and will potentially leave some patients with long-term disability, the study says.
“Metal-on-metal hip prostheses like the DePuy ASR XL can and do create three to five-fold increases in blood levels of the heavy metals chromium and cobalt,” the lawsuit states. “Toxicity from these metals causes metallosis, a disease that destroys the tissues surrounding the artificial joint. Left unresolved, metallosis creates irreparable harm to the patient from the progressive destruction of the joint tissues.”According to the court document, other health issues related to failure of the ASR XL hip implant include “immediate irreparable harm from undiagnosed metal disease and the effect it has on the joint, even after revision and on other targeted organs, such as the brain, heart, liver, and kidneys.”
Sadly, there’s more. In addition to risk of infection and blood clots in a second implant surgery, revisions will not last as long as the 20 to 30 years the original hip implants were expected to last.
The BMJ report cites longstanding “evidence of risk from metal-on-metal hips, the manufacturers’ inadequate response, and how regulatory bodies failed to give doctors and patients the information they need to make informed decisions.”
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned in 2011 about metal ions that shed minute particles of the metal implant that migrate into the bloodstream and damage bone or tissue surrounding the implant and joint.
BMJ quotes an internal DePuy memo from July 2005 that says, “In addition to inducing potential changes in immune function, there has been concern for some time that wear debris may be carcinogenic… One study suggested threefold risk of lymphoma and leukemia 10 years after joint replacement.”
“So-called ‘Silent Metal Disease,’ is found in upwards of 30% of patients with no symptoms. Cobalt and chromium poisoning can only be diagnosed promptly through a program of universal and comprehensive monitoring of the entire population of ASR XL patients,” according to the lawsuit.
BMJ says it’s likely there are more than 500,000 “at risk large diameter” metal-on-metal hips implanted in American patients since 2003 which require monitoring.
The lawsuit is asking that a class be certified and that DePuy be ordered to establish a fund to pay the costs of medical monitoring over the lifetime of all ASR XL Acetabular System hip implant patients. Those costs include annual blood and urine tests and medical imaging such as ultrasound and MRI examinations.
These shoes were made for walking–or not–according to this class action. This isn’t the first time we’ve seen complaints from consumers over reportedly false claims made by toning shoes manufacturers. This week, a consumer fraud class-action lawsuit was filed on behalf of consumers bought Skechers, alleging misleading advertising influenced people’s decision to buy the company’s “Shape-Ups” toning shoes.
The Skechers ”Shape-Ups” toning sneaker class action lawsuit seeks money damages for consumers who paid a “premium price” for Skechers “Shape-Ups” based on TV, print and Internet ads that touted the toning shoes’ health benefits.
In reality, the complaint alleges, the shoes provide no additional health benefits. Instead, they pose a risk of injury due to their pronounced rocker bottom sole, according to the complaint.
The lawsuit seeks money damages and an order that would stop Skechers from “deceptive and unlawful advertising.”
According to the lawsuit, the shoes are marketed, sold and promoted by Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., and its subsidiaries.
The complaint states that Skechers is currently being investigated for its toning shoes marketing claims by the Federal Trade Commission. In September, the FTC reached a $25 million settlement with Reebok for making similar fitness claims about its own brand of toning shoes, the lawsuit states. Footwear News estimates that Skechers will face a fine of $75 million.
In particular, the lawsuit alleges that Skechers promoted that its “Shape-Ups” would provide health benefits “without setting foot in a gym.”
However, the plaintiffs claim, the company has produced no valid scientific proof that the toning shoes provide any greater benefit than regular athletic shoes.
The complaint cites an American Council on Exercise study that concluded, “There is simply no evidence to support the claims that these shoes will help wearers exercise more intensely, burn more calories or improve muscle strength and tone.”
However, the lawsuit alleges, the shoes do pose health risks. Because the rocker bottom soles create instability and change gait mechanics, they can trigger chronic injuries and cause wearers to fall and suffer injuries, the plaintiffs claim.
An attorney representing the plaintiffs notes a May 2011 Consumer Reports article stating that toning shoes had produced more injury reports than any other product in its database. The reported injuries included tendinitis and foot, leg and hip pain. The more severe reported injuries included broken bones. Looks like it’s back to the gym after all…
Top Settlements
Remember Mayberry RFD? “America’s Happiest Hamlet,” according to the trailer. Well, there’s something of that sentiment about this settlement. Maybe because the good guys won after all. Finally, after almost 10 years of litigation, a settlement in the Orange County Register unpaid wages class action lawsuit (Gonzalez, et al. v. Freedom Communications, Inc., et al., Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 03CC08756) has been reached.
In the settlement, the directors and officers of Freedom Communications, the parent of the OC Register, agreed to pay $15.5 million—in addition to an earlier $14.5 million paid in 2010—to resolve the paper carriers’ class action against the OC Register. The final $30 million settlement brings closure to litigation that had been ongoing for nearly a decade.
The California labor class action case was initially filed in the Orange County Superior Court in 2003 and then proceeded through the litigation process, culminating in seven weeks of jury trial before it was settled in January of 2009 for $38 million. While the plaintiff newspaper carriers won the battle, Freedom filed bankruptcy on September 1, 2009 and sought to eliminate this obligation through bankruptcy one week before the agreed payment date.
OK—Happy Friday everyone—See you at the bar!
Week Adjourned: 2.24.12
February 24th, 2012. By LucyC
Top Class Actions
Hotels.com—too good to be true? Kaylen Silverberg thinks so. She filed a consumer fraud class action lawsuit this week against the online booking agency, alleging it does not back up its promise to refund money if hotel guests can find a better rate elsewhere online.
Instead, Silverberg’s lawsuit claims, Hotels.com sets an “arbitrary and undisclosed limit” on refunds.
Silverberg’s lawsuit states Hotels.com will not back up its promise: “‘after you book with Hotels.com, if you find a lower publicly available rate on line for the same dates, hotel, and room category, we will match the price and refund you the difference.’” Instead, the lawsuit states, “Hotels.com has an arbitrary and undisclosed policy to refund only a portion of the difference between its rate and other, lower rates. For example, in Silverberg’s case, Hotels.com stated that ‘we can only refund you $142,’ even though the price difference was substantially greater.”
Silverberg’s story, short version, is allegedly that she booked a room through Hotels.com for two nights in Rancho Palos Verdes, CA., for $355 per night, then found a $223 rate at HotelClub.com. A third website advertised an even lower rate, $213. Silverberg then asked Hotels.com to back up its guarantee but she was told by the company that they would refund her only $71 a night, which she calls “an arbitrary and undisclosed limit.”
The lawsuit seeks restitution and class damages for breach of contract and unjust enrichment—otherwise known as “business as usual.”
Top Settlements
Every so often a class action settlement comes along that results directly from very unfortunate circumstances. This is one such settlement. This week, Teva Pharmaceuticals, the maker of Propofol, announced it will settle 120 personal injury lawsuits arising from a hepatitis C outbreak in Southern Nevada. The amount of the Nevada Propofol settlement is a reported $285 million.
The Israeli-based generic drug maker was facing lawsuits brought by some 150 former patients of The Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada and its sister clinics, who contracted the disease after receiving propofol at the clinics. LAS reported on this in some detail at the time.
According to a report in the Las Vegas Review Journal, nine hepatitis C cases were found to be linked to the clinics which were run by Dr. Dipak Desai. Seven of the nine cases were genetically linked to the center. Health officials called another 106 cases “possibly linked.” According to health officials, more than 60,000 former clinic patients were potentially exposed to hepatitis C because of unsafe injection practices by nurse anesthetists at the clinics.
Teva lost the first three trials and was facing payments of nearly $800 million dollars in compensatory and punitive damages. The fourth trial was under way when settlement talks began in earnest. The settlement leaves 15 lawsuits unresolved.
Antennagate may be drawing to a close…if a preliminary settlement reached in a defective products class-action lawsuit against Apple is approved. The lawsuit alleges underperformance of its iPhone 4 resulting from antenna problems. And oh brother did we ever hear about it! While the iPhone 4 settlement per class member is certainly not large, by anyone’s measure—the size of the class certainly is—25 million US residents no less, each of whom could receive $15 in cash or a bumper case provided by Apple under the terms of the settlement. So, don’t be quitting your day job just yet.
The class action combined 18 separate lawsuits, all of which allege Apple was “misrepresenting and concealing material information in the marketing, advertising, sale, and servicing of its iPhone 4—particularly as it relates to the quality of the mobile phone antenna and reception and related software.”
As part of the iPhone 4 settlement original purchasers will be sent emails before April 30, 2012 alerting them to the settlement. The claims period is then open for 120 days.
OK—And it’s off to the bar we go. See you there!
Alert: Whirlpool Dishwasher Fires Lead to Class Action Lawsuit
November 18th, 2011. By AbiK
A class action lawsuit is always news around here, but a lawsuit that arises from a multitude of consumers complaining about fires erupting from their Whirlpool dishwashers is cause for an APB. So please pass this along for everyone’s safety.
A class action lawsuit has been filed in California alleging that Whirlpool (manufacturer of Whirlpool, KitchenAid and Sears Kenmore dishwashers) knew of a product defect in their dishwashers but hid that information from the public.
According to a grassroots consumer complaint website (kitchenaidfire.com), Whirlpool dishwasher owners report that the fires appear to have started in the machines’ control circuit boards. The video from WPRI.com above shows where the dishwasher fire originated for one owner.
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 ...
