Mylan Pharmaceuticals may need it’s own EpiPen if this gets to court. The maker of the EpiPen device, is facing a price gouging class action lawsuit. Filed by a resident of Ohio, the lawsuit asserts that the sharp increase in price the company has put in place violates Ohio state consumer protection laws.
Mylan has reportedly raised the US price of the device, which is used to for emergency treatment of life-threatening allergic reactions, from less than $100, when it acquired the device in 2007, to over $600. EpiPen works by injecting a dose of the drug epinephrine into the thigh to counter dangerous allergic reactions to things like bee stings, shellfish and peanuts. It has a 94 percent share of the market for such auto-injector devices.
The EpiPen lawsuit has been filed in the Court of Common Pleas for Hamilton County, Ohio, by Cincinnati resident Linda Bates, whose son requires an EpiPen. According to the complaint, “The outrageous, unconscionable and immoral high prices set by Defendant is nothing more than price gouging.”
The complaint further claims that the price increases violated the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, which prohibits “unconscionable” acts in connection with consumer transactions, including taking advantage of a consumer’s “physical infirmities.”
What can one say?
Some Granola To Crunch On… Here’s another one—General Mills got hit with a consumer fraud class action lawsuit this week over allegations its Nature Valley products contain a chemical that could be carcinogenic. Hey—maybe it adds flavor. Or not. But somehow the descriptive “carcinogenic” doesn’t sound like its quintessentially from an idyllic fantasyland called “Nature Valley”.
Filed by Yesenia Nuez, a resident of New York, the Nature Valley lawsuit asserts that General Mills promoted its Nature Valley bars as “Made with 100% Natural Whole-Grain Oats.” According to Nuez, these claims are false, because the bars contain oats that are not 100 per cent naturally made. Rather, they contain the chemical glysophate. Glysophate is a potent biocide, a probable carcinogen and a human endocrine disrupter, according to the suit. Nuez claims that as a result, the Nature Valley bars could be causing harm to consumers.
Yesenia Nuez filed the class-action lawsuit, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, alleging false, deceptive and misleading advertising practices regarding its Nature Valley products. The case is U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York Case number 1:16-cv-04731-FB-VMS
Amgen Securities Settlement. A $95 million settlement has been reached in a securities class action lawsuit pending against pharmaceutical company Amgen Inc.
Brought by investors, the lawsuit claims that Amgen failed to disclose the results of a study known as DAHANCA 10, which tested Aranesp in head and neck cancer patients in Denmark. When Amgen’s failure to disclose was discovered and reported, the company’s stock crashed.
The period in which class members were affected is between April 22, 2004 and May 10, 2007. Under the agreement, Amgen will pay $95 million into a settlement fund to be distributed to class members. The settlement is subject to court approval.
The lawsuit is In re Amgen Inc. Securities Litigation, CV-07-2536 PSG, pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Ka-Ching! That’s a wrap folks—see you at the Bar.
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.
Do you have Touch Disease? Or, more to the point—does your iPhone 6 or 6 plus? Here are the symptoms loss of functionality by reduced responsiveness or no responsiveness at all, when interacting with the touch screen. The defect is typically preceded by a flickering grey bar across the top of the display. According to the lawsuit, the loss of functionality results from a defective logic board.
Yes—touch disease is an alleged defect in the iPhone 6 generation. It’s referred to as “touch disease”, because the alleged defect, the lawsuit asserts, manifests as reduced touch screen functionality.
An iPhone 6 defective products class action lawsuit was filed against Apple this week. One to watch.
Heads up Tropical Smoothie Fans…a food poisoning class action lawsuit was filed this week against Virginia-based Tropical Smoothie cafes. The strawberry smoothies have been linked to an outbreak of Hepatitis A. The infected strawberries reportedly come from Egypt.
According to Virginia State health officials, at least 28 cases of Hepatitis A have so far been linked to the tainted strawberries. Last week, 35 cases of Hepatitis A had been recorded, with a majority connected to stores in Northern Virginia, according to state health officials. Tropical Smoothie has locations in Hampton, James City and York counties and roughly 300 stores nationwide.
The Tropical Smoothie lawsuit is filed against by a plaintiff claiming damages and recovery of costs associated with vaccination shots she got to guard against hepatitis A.
According to court documents, the plaintiff had smoothies at a Yorktown store in the last month or so. After finding out she’d possibly been exposed to hepatitis A, she followed health official recommendations and had a series of vaccination shots.
According to Virginia State health officials, customers of Tropical Smoothie outlets could have been infected even if they didn’t order smoothies with strawberries, because the cafes use the same blender to make smoothies.
FYI—Hepatitis A is a disease often transmitted by contaminated food or drinks that can cause liver infections with fever, jaundice and malaise.
Avon Ladies to get Compensated…Avon has reached a proposed $1.8 million settlement in an unpaid overtime class action brought by Avon’s district managers, who alleged the company misclassified them as exempt employees and therefore did not pay them time and half wages they were due.
According to the terms of the proposed Avon overtime settlement, anyone who worked as a district manager at one of Avon’s California locations between April 2009 and March 31, 2016 will be able to claim compensation for their unpaid wages.
The settlement must receive final approval.
So folks, on that happy note, this week’s a wrap. Happy Labor Day long weekend—we’ll see you at the bar!!
Unpaid Overtime? So File a Lawsuit – Just Do It. If indeed that proves to be the case. This week, a California overtime and labor law class action lawsuit was certified against Nike. The complaint is brought by employees who worked at Nike’s Gilroy store in California, who alleged the company failed to pay employees for the time they spent going through security inspection or bag checks at the end of every work shift.
According to the Nike lawsuit, Isaac Rodriguez is suing for himself and on behalf of a putative class of all current and former non-exempt retail store employees of defendant Nike Retail Services, Inc. (Nike) who worked in California during the period from February 25, 2010 to the present.
It is estimated that the class may consist of as many as 6,000 people who worked in 31 stores over the requested five-year period from February 25, 2010 to the present.
No Car Rental Returns? Here’s a crafty one. According to a couple of folks who rented cars from Regency Car Rentals and Hertz, they are owed their security deposits. Neither car rental agency has returned them, claiming charges against those deposits, so a consumer fraud class action has been filed.
Here’s the back story: filed by Nishil Patel and Gurraj Singh, the Hertz lawsuit asserts that in November 2015, Mr. Patel rented a vehicle from Regency for a two-day period. His Visa card was charged for the full amount of $3,254.25, while his American Express Card was charged $3,299.40 as a deposit, the lawsuit states. He alleges he was told it would be refunded upon return of the vehicle. He alleges that Regency assessed two unauthorized charges after the rental.
Similarly, Mr. Singh asserts that he also was assessed unauthorized charges against his security deposit, such that his security deposit was not refunded to his credit card. As a direct result, the plaintiffs and other class members allegedly have suffered injury, and have lost money or property.
The plaintiffs hold Regency Car Rentals LLC, Hertz Global Holdings Inc. and The Hertz Corp. responsible because the defendants allegedly deceived consumers by making false statements, misrepresented the cost of the rental of vehicles, double-billed and assessed unauthorized fees to consumers. Whoa!
The case is US District Court for the Central District of California case number 2:16-cv-05967.
Meanwhile, in Canada…a $12 million settlement has been finalized in an unpaid overtime class action lawsuit pending against BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc, a Canadian finance company.
Filed in 2010, the lawsuit was certified as a class action in 2013. The settlement ends six years of litigation involving some 1,800 investment advisers who worked for Nesbitt between 2002 and 2016.
As part of the Nesbitt Burns settlement, Nesbitt will pay lead plaintiff Yegal Rosen, who worked as a Nesbitt investment adviser from 2002 to 2006, a $10,000 honorarium. As part of the settlement, $6.5 million is allocated for 705 trainee investment advisers and $1.3 million will go to 1,136 senior advisers.
Nesbitt cannot contest any class member’s entitlement to payment, and the amount each member will receive depends on the take-up rate.
Bet there’s gonna be some celebrating this weekend.
So folks, on that happy note, this week’s a wrap – see you at the bar!!
Your Dream Holiday? Or not. According to two women in California—it’s “or not.”. They filed a consumer fraud class action lawsuit against Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited Inc, alleging they sustained financial damages due to misleading information the defendant provided them on purchasing a time-share.
According to Kyle Miles and Jasmine Miles, Bluegreen Vacations made several false representations regarding a timeshare contract, including the total cost of the contract. Further, they assert the company promised that they would buy back the contract from the consumers if they were unhappy with the timeshare. I’m guessing that didn’t happen.
Kyle and Jasmine Miles seek a trial by jury, restitution, enhanced damages, legal fees and all relief the court deems just. They are represented by attorneys Todd M. Friedman and Adrian R. Bacon of the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman in Beverly Hills, California.
The case is US District Court for the Eastern District of California Case number 1:16-cv-00937-LJO-JLT.
Here’s something we’re seeing a lot more of these days, an ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) class action lawsuit. This one has been filed against Columbia University alleging it breached its obligation under ERISA to prudently invest its employees’ retirement savings.
In the Columbia University class complaint alleging one hundred million dollars in damages, Plaintiff Jane Doe, a faculty member at Columbia University and a participant of the University’s retirement plans, sued on behalf of herself and a class of 27,000 current and former Columbia University employees who participated in Columbia University’s retirement plans. The complaint alleges that the University breached its fiduciary duties under ERISA. Columbia University, as well as University Vice President of Human Resources Dianne Kenney, who administers the deficient plans, are named as Defendants.
According to the complaint, Columbia University retained expensive and poor-performing investment options that consistently underperformed their benchmarks. This caused its 401(k) plans and their participants to suffer hundreds of millions of dollars in losses of retirement savings. As a result, the University’s 401(k) plan included $4.6 billion of investment options that were primarily poor to mediocre performers. Among the plans’ poor-performers, the complaint points to the plans’ retention of the TIAA-CREF Stock Account R3, which, it alleges, has historically underperformed its benchmarks and other lower-cost investments that were available for inclusion in its retirement plans.
In addition to retaining poorly performing funds, the lawsuit charges that the University’s plans offer excessively duplicative investments to beneficiaries. According to the complaint, this selection of funds violates the industry principle that too many choices harm participants, and can lead plan participants to “decision paralysis” and selection of inferior investments. In addition, the plans charge excessive fees for recordkeeping, administrative, and investment services, and retain excessively expensive retail share class options despite the lower-cost options available to their plans.
WEN is there a Settlement? Big news for people who suffered damages from WEN Hair Care Products.
A proposed $26,250,000 settlement has finally been reached in the class action lawsuit pending against them.
Cast your mind back to December, 2015, when the class action lawsuit was actually filed, naming defendants Wen Hair Products and the manufacturer Guthy-Renker. The lawsuit resulted from thousands of complaints from women alleged severe and possibly permanent hair loss after using the products. Other Wen side effects include rash and burning eyes.
So here’s the skinny on the proposed WEN settlement: The settlement class is defined as All purchasers or users of WEN Hair Care Products in the United States or its territories between November 1, 2007 and August 1, 2016, excluding (a) any such person who purchased for resale and not for personal or household use, (b) any such person who signed a release of any Defendant in exchange for consideration, (c) any officers, directors or employees, or immediate family members of the officers, directors or employees, of any Defendant or any entity in which a Defendant has a controlling interest, (d) any legal counsel or employee of legal counsel for any Defendant, and (e) the presiding Judge in the Lawsuit, as well as the Judge’s staff and their immediate family members.
The settlement consideration consists of the $26,250,000 (the “Fund”) settlement fund which shall be used to pay for administration and court costs, legal fees, and other related costs, and to pay Class Member claims and provide Incentive Awards to the named plaintiffs.
There are two Settlement Classes, namely, Tier 1 and Tier 2.
Tier 1 Class-Wide Flat Rate Claims consists of any member of the Settlement Class who purchased Wen Hair Care products and does not timely request to opt-out of the settlement class. They shall be entitled to submit a claim against the Fund for a one-time flat payment of $25 per person as compensation for claims of misrepresentation regarding the qualities and attributes of WEN Hair Care Products, or undocumented claims of bodily injury, including but not limited to hair loss, hair damage, scalp pain or irritation, after using WEN Hair Care Products. Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000) of the Fund shall be set aside to pay Class Members making Tier 1 claims.
Tier 2 Documented Adverse Reaction Claims shall consist of any member of the Settlement Class who alleges to have suffered bodily injury, including but not limited to hair loss, hair damage, scalp pain or irritation,as a result of using WEN Hair Care Products, and does not timely request to opt out from the Settlement Class, may make a claim against the Fund for reimbursement of amounts spent to redress such alleged injuries, as well as an injury award designed to compensate the Class Member for any alleged injuries sustained, up to a maximum of $20,000 per Class Member, as set forth below. To make a claim under Tier 2, the Class Member must submit a valid Tier 2 Claim Form and supporting documentation, as set required by the Settlement Agreement.
The Defendant also agrees that all labels for WEN Cleansing Conditioner created after the Effective Date shall bear a common sense caution materially consistent with the following: “If you experience any adverse reaction after using this product, immediately cease use and consult a physician.”
The settlement remains to be approved – but watch this space for updates.
So folks, on that happy note—this week’s a wrap. See you at the bar!!