Settlement Archive
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!
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!
Asbestos News Roundup: 3.15.12 – Asbestos Lawsuit & Settlement News
March 15th, 2012. By LucyC
A roundup of recent asbestos-related news and information that you should be aware of. An ongoing list of reported asbestos hot spots in the US from the Asbestos News Roundup archive appears on our asbestos map.
Asbestos Lawsuits
St. Louis, IL: Dennis and Cindy J. Conlogue are suing 22 defendant corporations in their recently filed asbestos lawsuit. Dennis Conlogue developed lung cancer after working as a union carpenter in Michigan from 1972 until 2004 and as a member of the U.S. Army from 1970 until 1972, according to his asbestos lawsuit.
As a result of his asbestos-related disease, Dennis Conlogue became disabled and disfigured, incurred medical costs and suffered great physical pain and mental anguish, the lawsuit states. In addition, he became prevented from pursuing his normal course of employment and, as a result, lost large sums of money that would have accrued to him.
The defendants should have known of the harmful effects of asbestos, but failed to exercise reasonable care and caution for the plaintiff’s safety, the Conlogues claim.
In their eight-count complaint, the Conlogues are seeking compensatory damages of more than $25,000, actual and compensatory damages of more than $75,000, aggravated damages of more than $25,000 and punitive and exemplary damages of more than $25,000, in their asbestos lawsuit. (madisonrecord.com)
St. Louis, IL: George and Charlotte Moreland filed a lawsuit against 115 defendant corporations. Mr. Moreland developed mesothelioma after he was exposed to asbestos fibers during his career as a laborer at Benny’s Auto Sales in Rolla, Mo., from 1963 until 1964, as a laborer at Shorty’s Marathon in Dayton, Ohio, in 1964, as an apprentice bricklayer at Scruggs and Jolly Construction Co. in Cincinnati, Ohio, from 1966 until 1970, as a member of the U.S. Air Force from 1966 until 1970, as a laborer at Union Electric in 1970 and as a laborer at Sprint/United Telephone in Kansas City, Mo., and Overland Park, Kan., from 1971 until 2009.
The Morelands allege George became disabled and disfigured, incurred medical costs and suffered great physical pain and mental anguish as a result of asbestos mesothelioma. Furthermore, Mr. Moreland was unable to work, and, as a result, lost large sums of money that would have accrued to him, the lawsuit states.
The lawsuit claims the defendants should have known of the harmful effects of asbestos, but failed to exercise reasonable care and caution for the George Moreland’s safety.
In their 12-count complaint, the Moreland are seeking a judgment of more than $50,000, compensatory damages of more than $50,000, punitive and exemplary damages of more than $50,000, actual and compensatory damages of more than $100,000, economic damages of more than $150,000 and other relief the court deems just.(madisonrecord.com)
St. Louis, IL: Further to their mother’s death from lung cancer, Ervin Norful Jr., Connie McCall, Pat Coleman, James Norful, Steve Norful, Mary Hawkins and Kim Norful filed a lawsuit against 44 defendant corporations.
In their complaint, the Norful family alleges that the defendant companies caused Rodessa Norful to develop lung cancer after her exposure to asbestos-containing products throughout her career as a laborer at Bussmann Manufacturing Company from 1969 until 1980s.
As a result of her asbestos-related disease, Rodessa Norful, became disabled and disfigured, incurred medical costs and suffered great physical pain and mental anguish, the complaint says. In addition, she became prevented from pursuing her normal course of employment and, as a result, lost large sums of money that would have accrued to her, her family claims. Because of Rodessa Norful’s death, her family has incurred funeral costs and has been deprived of her support and society.
Rodessa’s family claim the defendants should have known of the harmful effects of asbestos, but failed to exercise reasonable care and caution for their mother’s safety.
In their six-count complaint, the Norful family is seeking actual and compensatory damages of more than $50,000, and punitive and exemplary damages of more than $100,000, plus other relief the court deems just. (madisonrecord.com)
St. Louis, IL: An asbestos lawsuit filed by Debra Payne, Jordan Foster, Dawn Browning, Kevin Payne, Derek Payne and Erik Payne names 47 companies as defendants, alleging those companies were negligent in their exercising reasonable care and caution for their father’s safety.
In their lawsuit, the Payne family claims Allen Payne developed lung cancer after he was exposed to asbestos fibers during his work as an assembly line worker at General Motors in St. Louis in 1966 and from 1971 until 1985 and as an aircraft carrier for the U.S. Navy from 1966 until 1971.
As a result of his asbestos-related disease, Allen Payne became disabled and disfigured, incurred medical costs and suffered great physical pain and mental anguish, the lawsuit states. In addition, he was unable to continue his normal course of employment and, as a result, lost large sums of money that would have accrued to him, the lawsuit states.
As a result of Allen Payne’s death, his family has incurred funeral costs and has been deprived of his support and society.
In their eight-count complaint, the Payne family is seeking a judgment of more than $50,000, compensatory damages of more than $100,000, punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish various defendants and to prevent them from committing similar acts in the future, aggravated damages of more than $25,000, punitive and exemplary damages of more than $25,000 and actual and compensatory damages of more than $100,000. (madisonrecord.com)
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!
Asbestos News Roundup: 3.8.12 – Asbestos Lawsuit & Settlement News
March 8th, 2012. By LucyC
A roundup of recent asbestos-related news and information that you should be aware of. An ongoing list of reported asbestos hot spots in the US from the Asbestos News Roundup archive appears on our asbestos map.
Asbestos Lawsuits
St. Louis, IL: Bonnie Lemoine, Christie Leblanc and Melodie Lalonde, the wife and children of the late Gerard Lemoine, have filed an asbestos lawsuit naming 47 defendant companies.
In their asbestos lawsuit, the plaintiffs allege Gerard Lemoine developed lung cancer after working as an electrician for the U.S. Navy from 1955 to 1976, and as an electrician for ODECO in New Orleans from 1976 until 1991.
The defendants should have known of the harmful effects of asbestos, but failed to exercise reasonable care and caution for the plaintiff’s safety, the suits state.
Lemoine’s relatives allege that Gerard Lemoine became disabled and disfigured, incurred medical costs and suffered great physical pain and mental anguish, as a result of his asbestos-related lung cancer. Furthermore, he was unable to pursue his normal course of employment and, as a result, lost large sums of money that would have accrued to him. And, his family further allege that as a direct result of Mr. Lemoine’s death, they have incurred funeral costs and have been deprived of his support and society.
Gerard Lemoine’s relatives are seeking a judgment of more than $50,000, compensatory damages of more than $150,000, punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish various defendants and to prevent them from committing similar acts in the future, actual and compensatory damages of more than $50,000, aggravated damages of more than $25,000 and punitive and exemplary damages of more than $25,000. (madisonrecord.com)
St. Louis, IL: John Williams Jr. and Bernice P. Williams are suing 39 defendant corporations. In their complaint, the Williamses allege the defendant companies caused John Williams Jr. to develop long cancer after his exposure to asbestos-containing products at work.
From1957 to 1990, Williams worked as a maintenance worker, carpenter and aircraft sheet metal mechanic at various locations in Missouri and California. It was during this time that, he claims, he was exposed to asbestos.
As a result of his subsequent asbestos-related disease, the lawsuit states, John Williams Jr., became disabled and disfigured, incurred medical costs and suffered great physical pain and mental anguish. Further, he was unable to pursue his normal course of employment and, as a result, lost large sums of money that would have accrued to him, he claims.
The Williams are seeking actual and compensatory damages of more than $100,000, and punitive and exemplary damages of more than $25,000, plus other relief the court deems just. (madisonrecord.com)
St. Louis, IL: Larry and Barbara Buckelew have filed an asbestos lawsuit naming 49 defendant corporations.
In their complaint, the Buckelews allege Larry Buckelew developed lung cancer after being exposed to asbestos fibers during the course of his work as an electrician at Climatrol in Decatur, Al, from 1962 until 1972, as an electrician at Davis and Daniel Construction in Albany, GA, from 1973 until 1974 and from 1976 until 1977, as an electrician at Brown and Root in Decatur, Al, as an electrician at TVA in Scotsboro, Al, from 1988 until 1991, as an electrician at Bamsi from 1985 until 1986, as an electrician at 3M Decatur from 1987 until 1988, as an electrician at Stone and Webster from 1991 until 1996 and as an electrician at Cullier Electric from 1996 until 2001.
The Buckelew’s claim the defendants should have known of the harmful effects of asbestos. Instead, they claim, the defendants failed to exercise reasonable care and caution for the Mr. Buckelew’s safety.
As a result of their asbestos-related diseases, Larry Buckelew alleges he became disabled and disfigured, incurred medical costs and suffered great physical pain and mental anguish. Moreover, he was unable to work and, as a result, lost large sums of money that would have accrued to him.
The Buckelews are seeking a judgment of more than $50,000, compensatory damages of more than $150,000, punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish various defendants and to prevent them from committing similar acts in the future, economic damages of more than $150,000, punitive and exemplary damages of more than $25,000 and actual and compensatory damages of more than $50,000. (madisonrecord.com)
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 ...
