Class Action Archive

Touch Disease: What Happens when your iPhone Goes on Strike

October 4th, 2016. By LucyC

So where do you start? Perhaps where the disease was first reported, to the best of our knowledge, that is. That might be a good place. Initially, that was among American users, now Canadians are jumping on the defective products bandwagon. If I’m not mistaken, it has also been reported in Europe. I am, of course, referring to the iPhone 6 and 6+ Touch disease. It’s changing the way Apple fans feel about their appendages. And not for the better. Seriously folks.

Touch disease. An interesting term. But how else would you describe a complete non-response from an object that basically functions by touch? It’s a slave to the stroke, swipe and tap. Granted, calling it a disease might be taking things a little too far. But let’s roll with it.

The symptoms? Basically, no matter how often or how fondly you fondle your iPhone, it doesn’t respond. So, you can’t answer your calls, send texts, emails or anything else for that matter. The iPhone has had enough, wants a divorce, and half of the asset base. No, wait, I’m getting confused.

Maybe 6 and 6+ just want some time off, feel used, or perhaps, they want to be made properly. According to the lawsuits, the underlying problem—the cause of Touch disease—is the touchscreen controller chips in the phone’s motherboard. Allegedly, they aren’t properly secured and can malfunction with regular use.

As one tech journalist explains it, in his article entitled “The hell of owing an iPhone 6 with Touch disease” (ok, we are not talking the plague here, just to be clear) … “touch disease” is an iPhone 6 Plus flaw related to “bendgate” in which the two tiny “Touch IC” connectors, which translate touchscreen presses into a machine input, become unseated from the phone’s logic board. It can be recognized by flickering gray bars along the top of the phone, and is associated with intermittent or total touchscreen failure,” (Jason Koebler, Motherboard.com)

This catastrophe could result in thousands of people scouring the streets in search of pay phones (best of luck there), and reading newspapers on the subway to work. It’s also possible that spontaneous conversations between strangers may be reported as becoming more common. Parents may remember to put their children in the car before they leave to drive them to school. Book sales could increase, and Jeopardy could find itself inundated with contestant applications.

Or, Samsung Galaxy could corner the market. But then they have their own problems. Let’s not go there just yet.

Whatever happens, Apple could find itself in hot water over this one. Touch disease apparently presents with symptoms almost as soon as the warranty has expired. Not surprisingly, class action lawsuits have been filed in the US and also in Canada.

The allegations including freezing or not responding to touch commands. I wonder if yelling at it works…

The lawsuits claim that Apple was aware of the problem but, yes you guessed it, did nothing to remedy the problem. What’s that saying—if it’s broke don’t fix it, just keep calm and carry on? Something like that. Looks like that is the strategy here, hence the lawsuits.

So keep calm and carry on folks—join a lawsuit, buy a different phone, get a newspaper subscription—maybe by iPhone 15 Apple will have worked out all the kinks. Holding your breath is not advised.

Tags: Apple, Defective Product, iPhone, Touch Disease
Posted in Class Action, Defective Products | 1 Comment »

Got a Samsung Washer Explosion Story?

September 9th, 2016. By LucyC

Is the day to day grind getting you down? Fed up with doing the laundry? Try out a Samsung washing machine—it could put a little Kaboom in your life, and your walls and possibly send a family member to hospital. That’d liven things up!

Yup—Samsung has allegedly cornered the market in exploding, top loading washing machines. Unintentionally, of course. But they’re not really owning the whole issue, well, actually, no part of it all. So, a consumer fraud class action lawsuit has been filed. I know, I know, hard to believe. But Samsung cannot not know about this.

A superquick search on Google (that’s the search where Google finishes your sentence—so you know something’s going on) turns up not one, not two—but dozens of reports of these machines literally exploding. If you’re having a hard time imagining that—just wait. And these reports go back to 2015—possibly earlier. People from across the US–one of the latest out of Bandera, TX—have posted their experiences on You-Tube, local news stations have covered the phenomenon, and CPSC is collecting first hand reports. And amazingly enough, this doesn’t seem to have prompted any action at all—not even a recall.

One news source, applicanceertailer.com, ran the headline: “Samsung washing machines now exploding in the US.” What ? So they had finished their run in Europe? (who writes this stuff?)

One woman counts herself lucky, as she admitted watching her machine at work—literally standing over the glass lid—before it blew itself up. Actually, to be accurate, it blows its sides out, shakes the walls, causing shelving to jiggle and ornaments and pictures to fall. People have thought it was a canon going off, or an earthquake. But there are far worse accounts.

To quote the Applianceretailer.com story…

“The washing machine claimed to have “suddenly and without warning” violently exploded as it completed its final minutes of high-speed spin cycle.” Didn’t know the washing machine could speak as well, but hey—wouldn’t put much past these things.

The article goes on…

“The [Consumer Product Safety Commission]  report reads, “The washer lid flew off the machine and slammed into the consumer on her lower back, causing the consumer to collide into a cabinet, where she struck her head, neck, upper body, chin and jaw.

“The entire washer lifted as much as six inches off the ground, spun 180 degrees, striking the consumer, damaging the wall and side of the dryer.”

Holy crap. Not to make light of the situation, but that sounds “Exorcist” worthy. Maybe they’re not defective, but possessed?

The article sites another two CPSC reports, one in which a consumer experienced not one but two explosions “that were felt across the entire house…”  The story states that “A safety health and environment professional reported that “all technicians, safety professionals, engineers and laymen were completely impressed with the level of carnage.” Well then. An unfortunate choice of phrasing, but we take their meaning.

The other report indicates that the entire machine exploded and burst into pieces. “The entire top of the unit separated and flew into our hallway, and the unit continued to spin violently around the laundry room, ripping holes in our walls, dryer, cabinets and flooring.” Ok—that’s impressive. At some point you might start to wonder what you put on your Shreddies that morning.

So, no recall, several lawsuits, and some pretty alarming stories.

Wonder what happened to the clothes?

If you’ve experienced your own, personal Samsung exploding washing machine event—we’d love to hear from you.

Tags: Class Action Lawsuit, Samsung
Posted in Class Action, Consumer Fraud | 2 Comments »

CVS Aloe Vera: Shouldn’t You be Able to Trust a Label?

July 8th, 2016. By LucyC

Consumer Fraud and the Slippery Slope

During the past few months there has been what one could call a “rash” of consumer fraud lawsuits filed concerning products that do not contain ingredients as advertised, and / or 100% of the ingredients advertised etc. Case in point, last week CVS Health found itself on the end of a proposed consumer fraud class action lawsuit over allegations it falsely advertised the Aloe Vera content on its moisturizing gel.

The issue, it seems, is that the CVS Aftersun Aloe Vera moisturizing gel does not contain 100 percent aloe vera, but does contain anti-freeze. Seriously. An allegedly non-toxic antifreeze, but antifreeze nevertheless.

The lawsuit was filed by Patricia Bordenet, a customer in Illinois, who went out and had the product tested. So my question is, who does that? I have to admit it’s not the first thought that comes to mind when I’m in the drugstore—or any store for that matter—looking for a specific product to purchase. I trust the label. And, I’m guessing, therein lies the rub.

Hats off to Bordenet for getting the product tested, because likely most of us would not have suspected the product to contain antifreeze. Admittedly, we might have our doubts about just how much Aloe Vera the product contains—everything has a shelf-life, after all—but even if enquiring minds wanted more information—would you have gone to the trouble of having the product tested?

So much for taking things on face value. And face value is, presumably, what many companies depend on when they make the claims they do on their products, and god knows there have been some pretty outrageous ones.

Take, for example, the Kardashian endorsed Waste Gang corsets. The packaging on that, according to the lawsuit, claimed that it would burn fat and help women achieve a smaller waist. Well, I can see you might sweat off the weight, under duress of wearing the product, but that’s not something you would want to advertise.

The Waist Gang Society LLC (Society?) has to pony up a $5 million settlement for not telling it like it is—which is that the corsets redistribute the fat—not “burn fat and control the user’s weight,” Oh, if it was only that easy! Sign me up!

Back to the antifreeze. The other, more serious consideration with failure to disclose all the contents of a product—particularly a product that is either applied to the body or ingested, is that people using it may suffer an allergic reaction—or worse—as a result of exposure to that product. There you are in the ER with no idea how or why you got there. That’s helpful. And likely not something that was thought through when the labeling or advertising was developed. Giving the benefit of the doubt here.

And now we find ourselves at the precipice of the Slippery Slope. Because giving the benefit of the doubt is not always such a good idea, as is evidenced by a slew of drug injury settlements—most recently one for $70 million involving a young man who grew breasts as a result of using Risperdal. The jury found that the maker of the drug, Janssen, knowingly concealed information about the side effects of gynecomastia.

But I digress. Well, no, I just went down the Slippery Slope. So enough. Enough of the exaggerated claims, enough of the lies, why not just make a safe product that is what it claims to be? While that may be an altruistic notion, does that necessarily make it difficult? If it is too difficult—then off to court you go.

 

 

 

 

Tags: Consumer Fraud
Posted in Class Action, Consumer Fraud | No Comments »

Lawsuit: Being “Natural” Makes Cigarettes Better?

June 7th, 2016. By LucyC

Every once in a while you come across something and just have to give your head a shake. Recently, a lawsuit—a proposed consumer fraud class action—was filed against a cigarette manufacturer over allegations the product is not as “healthy” as advertised. Ok. Who’s smoking what here?

One Scott Johnson, named plaintiff, of somewhere, Florida, has taken it upon himself to file the lawsuit and is apparently willing to represent others who also feel they have been misinformed as to the health effects of Natural American Spirit cigarettes. How thoughtful. Or not. And note, this is not the first time Natural American Spirit cigs have been on the receiving end of raised eyebrows and push back–anti-tobacco groups have tried to ensure these cigarettes are in the FDA’s crosshairs.

But, a short period of serious reflection—or a Google search—would surely raise some doubt in the consumer’s brain, if not lay plain the fact that cigarettes are not healthy, at all. Never have been. Never will be, regardless of how natural or unnatural they claim to be. And there’s half a century’s worth of science to prove it.

On the other hand, maybe that’s not what the consumer fraud lawsuit is about. Perhaps, it’s about making an example of the company—outing them because they’re allegedly being dishonest—they are, in the words of the lawsuit, guilty of unjust enrichment, violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and violation of similar statutes in other states. In other words, making suckers out their customers.

However, in the interest of honesty, unless you’ve lived in a galaxy far, far away, for the past half a century, it would be difficult, although possibly not impossible, to remain unaware of the legion of data on the adverse health effects of cigarettes.

Notably, the plaintiff steers clear of the tar and nicotine issue, instead focusing on claims that the labeling for Natural American Spirit cigarettes states that they are “natural,” “additive-free,” “organic” and as an “unadulterated tobacco product.” And therein lies the rub.

According to the complaint, these terms are intended to imply that American Spirits are purer, healthier and safer than other cigarettes and that they present a reduced risk of tobacco-related disease. (Is that even possible?)

Johnson goes on to claim in the proposed suit that there is no scientific evidence to suggest American Spirits are any safer or healthier than other cigarettes. (That would be a difficult, if not impossible thing to prove. )

To strengthen his claim, Johnston states that research conducted by Santa Fe’s competitors has shown that American Spirits are not free of additives. Hey—everything has a shelf life—even carcinogens.

As a result, the complaint states, purchasers of American Spirits paid a premium for cigarettes that are no healthier than other lower-cost cigarettes. In other words, you are just as likely to become ill from smoking American Spirit Cigarettes as any other brand—but you may have saved a few pennies in the process. This begs the question, would they have paid more for a premium brand of cigarettes, knowing the health risks are likely similar?

Johnston, and any other interested plaintiffs, want their day in court, in the hopes of collecting actual and punitive damages, etc. Be interesting to see what happens—what the tolerance level is for willful ignorance—and deceptive marketing. A marriage made in lawsuit heaven.

FYI—the case is US District Court for the Southern District of Florida Fort Pierce Division Case number 1:16-CV-00474-JB-LF

Posted in Class Action, Consumer Fraud | 2 Comments »

Peet’s Cheats? Coffee Lawsuit claims Short-Pouring Going On

November 12th, 2015. By LucyC

A few weeks ago, a man in Winnetka, Illinois filed a lawsuit against a national coffee and tea chain, Peet’s Coffee & Tea, alleging he has been cheated for the past five years. Specifically, he claims the amount of coffee he’s been served versus the amount of coffee advertised (and for which he’s paid) are different—he’s gotten less than promised—of course. And now he’s going to do something about it.

He’s waited five years to say something and this is how he does it? Ok—where do you start?

Well, let’s try the facts—which shouldn’t take long. On October 29, Robert Garret’s attorney, Alexander Loftus, filed a complaint on behalf of his client and presumable “others similarly situated”, in Cook County Circuit Court against Peet’s, which is based in Emerysville, California. The Peet’s lawsuit claims that for several years now the company has shorted its customers on the amount of coffee they receive when ordering either 12-ounce or 32-ounce cups of Peet’s Press Pot coffee.

A 32 oz cup of coffee? Seriously? Why not just get an enema? To put this in perspective for all of you Starbucks folks, that’s like downing a Venti coffee and then ordering another Tall one for the road.

I digress. Back to the facts, such as they are. According to the complaint, the menu board at the coffeehouses state those sizes, and customers may believe they are paying for those sizes. BUT, “in fact,” they receive significantly less coffee. For instance, the complaint asserted the largest cup in which beverages are sold at Peet’s can only hold 24 ounces of coffee. “Only”? “In truth, they are at least 25 percent less than the advertised volume,” Garrett’s complaint stated. He’s certainly observant.

The complaint goes on, no surprise, to state that the volumes referenced on the menu board may actually refer to the size of the French press devices in which the coffee is steeped. BUT, the complaint states that by referencing the volumes on the menu board, Peet’s intended to fool customers into believing they are actually receiving that much coffee.

“Defendants (Peet’s) have engaged in conduct designed to induce, or having the affect (sic) of inducing, consumers to believe that they are receiving materially more ounces of press coffee for their money than they actually are,” the complaint said.

Conversely, getting the full 32 oz of coffee could surely induce a few things as well, but clearly Garrett is willing to accept any side effects there.

Garrett claims that the French Press coffee is the only beverage Peet’s sells by specific volume. Everything else is sold by general sizes such as small, medium and large. 32 ounces would, I feel safe in saying, constitute super-sized large. In fact, it’s up there in Big Gulp territory (quick factoid: the original BG debuted at 32 oz back in 1976).

FYI—Garrett states that he buys his Peet’s coffee at the chain’s store at 817 Elm Street, Winnetka. (Is there no store manager he could have spoken with about this?) He believes there are thousands of others who ordered Peet’s Press Pot coffee at the chain’s nearly 250 locations nationwide who could join his lawsuit, should the court allow it to proceed as a class action. Well, it is a pressing matter—ha ha—pardon the pun but I couldn’t resist.

According to the potential class action, Peet’s actions have violated state consumer fraud laws, and constituted breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Garrett has asked the court to award unspecified compensatory damages and fees for himself and other members of the putative class.

What about coffee for life? Bring your own cup…

Posted in Class Action, Crazy Sh*t Lawyers See | No Comments »