HP named in class action lawsuit for installing firmware that causes printers to fail when using non-HP brand ink cartridges

 

The complaint contends that HP intentionally installed firmware on certain wirelessly-enabled HP printers that caused the printers to fail when being used with non-HP brand ink cartridges.

The firmware operated to disable the printers if ink cartridges manufactured by an HP competitor were being used. In such cases, error messages appeared on the printer and/or the device sending the print job to the printer stating that the printer error was due to a damaged or failed ink cartridge. The error messages instructed the users to replace the non-HP ink cartridges with new cartridges. Only if the cartridges were replaced with ones manufactured by HP did the printers resume operation.

As alleged, HP intentionally installed this firmware in order to force consumers to purchase HP’s more expensive ink cartridges as opposed to the less expensive ink cartridges manufactured by its competitors. This scheme was intended to and did cause HP to profit in the form of ink cartridge sales and servicing charges.

HP misrepresented to Plaintiffs that the printers were compatible with non-HP ink cartridges. Plaintiffs were induced to purchase the printers and/or ink cartridges from Defendants based on these misrepresentations regarding the functionality and quality of the printers. Defendants also intentionally misrepresented that the printers failed because the ink cartridges being used were damaged or had failed.

Complaint

Family Dollar named in class action lawsuit for falsely advertising Tropic Sun Aloe Vera Gel

This is a nationwide consumer class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of all individuals who purchased Defendants’ Tropic Sun Aloe Vera Gel.

Family Dollar Defendants advertise, market, sell, and distribute the Product. The Product’s label declares it to be “Made with 100% Pure Aloe.” According to the Product’s ingredient label, it contains “Aloe Barbadensis Leaf Juice.” In reality, according to independent laboratory tests, Defendants’ Product contain no actual Aloe Vera at all.

The complaint alleges that the product’s label is false, deceptive and misleading, in violation of the Federal Food Drug & Cosmetics Act and its parallel state statutes, and almost every state warranty, consumer protection, and product labeling law in the United States.

Gerber named in class action lawsuit over false and captive advertising of its Good Start baby product

The complaint alleges a pattern of deceptive and unfair business practices by Gerber Products Company in the marketing and sale of Good Start, a line of infant formula made with whey-protein concentrate that Defendant produces, distributes, markets, and sells.

The Complaint challenging deceptive and misleading representations that Defendant made in promoting and selling Good Start. Beginning in 2011, Defendant has claimed in advertising and product labeling that: (a) Good Start is the first and only formula whose consumption reduces the risk of infants developing allergies, and (b) Good Start is the first and only formula that the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) endorses to reduce the risk of developing certain allergies, such as atopic dermatitis.

Due to Defendant’s deceptive representations that Good Start provided health benefits beyond the benefits other baby formulas offered, and Defendant’s misleading representations that the FDA had unqualifiedly certified its health claims, Plaintiff and the Class were injured by purchasing Good Start at an inflated cost.

Mercedes-Benz recalls 2016-2017 model vehicles over miscalibration of Occupant Classification System

Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA) is recalling certain model year 2016-2017 GL350 4Matic Bluetec, GL550 4Matic, GLE350 4Matic, GLE43 AMG Coupe, GLE450 4Matic, 2016 GLE300d 4Matic, GLE350, GLE350d 4Matic, GLE400 4Matic, GLE550e 4Matic, GLE63 AMG, GLE63 AMG 4Matic, GLE63S AMG 4Matic Coupe, and 2017 GLS63 AMG vehicles manufactured April 23, 2014, to May 10, 2016. The front passenger seat Occupant Classification System (OCS) calibration may be incorrect, and as a result, the system can incorrectly classify the occupant as a child seat, deactivating the front passenger air bag.

47,799 vehicles are affected by the recall

MBUSA will notify owners, and dealers will update the OCS software, free of charge. The recall is expected to begin in January 2017.

Volkswagen recalls vehicles over defect in the antilock brake system

 

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is recalling certain model year 2009-2010 Volkswagen Jetta A5 Sedan, 2009 Volkswagen Jetta SportWagen, Eos, GTI, Rabbit and Audi A3 vehicles, and 2010 Volkswagen Golf A6 vehicles. The Antilock Brake System (ABS) control unit may fail during ABS or Electronic Stability Control (ESC) activation, possibly causing a loss of vehicle control.

135,683 vehicles are affected by the recall.

Volkswagen will notify owners, and dealers will update the ABS control module software to improve the module’s self-testing abilities. Any module that fails the new diagnostic test will be replaced. These repairs will be made free of charge. The manufacturer has not yet provide a notification schedule.

Honda recalls 2011-2016 Odyssey vehicles over defective release lever on second row outboard seats

 

Honda is recalling certain model year 2011-2016 Odyssey vehicles manufactured August 17, 2010, to October 1, 2015. The affected vehicles have second row outboard seats that have a release lever that allows the seats to move for easier access to the third row of seats. This release lever may remain in the unlocked position allowing the seats to move unexpectedly.

An unlocked second row outboard seat increases the risk of injury to the seat occupant during a crash.

633,753 cars are affected by the recall.

Honda will notify owners, and dealers will install an additional bracket and spring to both second row outboard seats, free of charge.  The recall is expected to begin January 23, 2017.

FTC files lawsuit against D-Link alleging it put consumers’ privacy at risk due to inadequate security of its computer routers and cameras

The Federal Trade Commission filed a complaint against Taiwan-based computer networking equipment manufacturer D-Link Corporation and its U.S. subsidiary, alleging that inadequate security measures taken by the company left its wireless routers and Internet cameras vulnerable to hackers and put U.S. consumers’ privacy at risk.

The FTC charged that D-Link failed to take reasonable steps to secure its routers and Internet Protocol (IP) cameras, potentially compromising sensitive consumer information, including live video and audio feeds from D-Link IP cameras.

According to the FTC’s complaint, D-Link promoted the security of its routers on the company’s website, which included materials headlined “EASY TO SECURE” and “ADVANCED NETWORK SECURITY.” But despite the claims made by D-Link, the FTC alleged, the company failed to take steps to address well-known and easily preventable security flaws, such as:

 

“hard-coded” login credentials integrated into D-Link camera software — such as the username “guest” and the password “guest” — that could allow unauthorized access to the cameras’ live feed;

a software flaw known as “command injection” that could enable remote attackers to take control of consumers’ routers by sending them unauthorized commands over the Internet;

the mishandling of a private key code used to sign into D-Link software, such that it was openly available on a public website for six months; and

leaving users’ login credentials for D-Link’s mobile app unsecured in clear, readable text on their mobile devices, even though there is free software available to secure the information.

According to the complaint, hackers could exploit these vulnerabilities using any of several simple methods. For example, using a compromised router, an attacker could obtain consumers’ tax returns or other files stored on the router’s attached storage device. They could redirect a consumer to a fraudulent website, or use the router to attack other devices on the local network, such as computers, smartphones, IP cameras, or connected appliances.

The FTC alleges that by using a compromised camera, an attacker could monitor a consumer’s whereabouts in order to target them for theft or other crimes, or watch and record their personal activities and conversations.

 

Tesla named in class action lawsuit over sudden acceleration issue in Model X vehicles

 

Since the introduction of the Model X, Defendant Tesla Motors, Inc., has sold approximately 16,000 Model X vehicles throughout the United States. Model X vehicles operate with an electronic acceleration control system by which complex computer and sensor systems communicate an accelerator pedal’s position to the vehicle’s onboard computers, telling the vehicle how fast it should go.

Able to accelerate from zero to sixty miles per hour in 2.9 to 3.8 seconds (depending on battery pack) and equipped with advanced safety features including Forward Collision Warning and Advanced Early Braking, Tesla proclaims that the Model X is “the safest, fastest and most capable sport utility vehicle in history.”

As alleged, the Model X is susceptible to sudden unintended acceleration (“SUA”), in which the Model X will accelerate at full power even though the driver reports that they did not command the acceleration by pressing on the accelerator pedal, either at all or not to the degree that would call for the application of full power.

COMPLAINT

Staples named in class action lawsuit for failing to honor obligations of its Member Rewards Program

staples_logo_2412

The complaint alleges that Staples engaged in a deceptive scheme whereby it purported to offer and provide to Plaintiff and the Class—as Staples Rewards Program Members (“Members”)—credit for a certain percentage of his/her/their total Qualifying Purchase Amount (“Rewards Points”) for purchases made during the applicable calendar quarter when, in fact, Members received credit in amounts far less than the represented percentage of their Qualifying Purchase Amount.

Specifically, Staples took affirmative steps to ensure that its Members received Program credit at rates well below the percentage represented of Purchase Amount by applying coupons used on exempted items (i.e., items that do not constitute as a “Qualifying Purchase”) on a pro rata basis across all purchases made—including “Qualifying Purchases” which should be added in their entirety to a Member’s quarterly total Qualifying Purchase Amount causing them to accrue fewer Rewards Points than represented. By employing this deceptive method of calculating Rewards Points, Staples shorted its Members’ account credit which could have been used towards the purchase of most merchandise in Staples’ stores, online at staples.com, or by phone.

Staples engaged in, and continues to engage in, an egregious misleading and deceptive practice designed to take advantage of its Members. Per the Staples Rewards Program and Conditions (the “Program”)that were in effect when Plaintiff made his purchase (annexed hereto as Exhibit B), “Members’ accounts will receive credit for Qualifying Purchases . . . made during the applicable calendar quarter if the Reward minimum . . . is met. Qualifying Purchase Amount is the amount paid at checkout after application of all promotions, coupons and Rewards redemption.” It is simply unfair and deceptive to apply coupons redeemable only for non-qualifying purchases under the Program on a pro rata basis across all purchases made in the same transaction—including merchandise qualifying under the Program. Indeed, Defendant’s sale receipts conceal this practice and apply coupons only to a single item—the item for which the coupon applies. This practice violates statutory and common law.

Complaint

Nestle USA, manufacturer of Lean Cuisine products, named in class action for deceptively marketing its products as containing no preservatives

lean-cuisine

Plaintiff brings this class action against NESTLE USA, INC, for the deceptive practice of marketing its Lean Cuisine® frozen meals as having “No Preservatives” when many of them contain citric acid (2-hydroxypropane-1,2,3-tricarboxylic acid), a well-known preservative commonly used in commercial food and drink products.

Defendant sold Plaintiff and Class members, and continues to sell consumers, the following products containing citric acid with misleading “No Preservatives” language:

  1. Lean Cuisine® favorites Alfredo Pasta with Chicken & Broccoli
  2. Lean Cuisine® favorites Four Cheese Cannelloni
  3. Lean Cuisine® favorites Cheese Ravioli
  4. Lean Cuisine® favorites Chicken Enchilada Suiza
  5. Lean Cuisine® favorites Fettuccini Alfredo
  6. Lean Cuisine® favorites Classic Five Cheese Lasagna
  7. Lean Cuisine® favorites Asian-Style Pot Stickers
  8. Lean Cuisine® favorites Spaghetti with Meatballs
  9. Lean Cuisine® favorites Macaroni & Cheese
  10. Lean Cuisine® favorites Chicken Fettuccini
  11. Lean Cuisine® favorites Five Cheese Rigatoni
  12. Lean Cuisine® favorites Cheddar Potatoes with Broccoli
  13. Lean Cuisine® favorites Lasagna with Meat Sauce
  14. Lean Cuisine® MARKETPLACE Roasted Chicken & Garden Vegetables
  15. Lean Cuisine® MARKETPLACE Creamy Basil Chicken with Tortellini
  16. Lean Cuisine® MARKETPLACE Chicken with Almonds
  17. Lean Cuisine® MARKETPLACE Sesame Chicken
  18. Lean Cuisine® MARKETPLACE Chicken Pecan
  19. Lean Cuisine® MARKETPLACE Ginger Garlic Stir Fry with Chicken
  20. Lean Cuisine® MARKETPLACE Tortilla Crusted Fish
  21. Lean Cuisine® MARKETPLACE Orange Chicken
  22. Lean Cuisine® MARKETPLACE Apple Cranberry Chicken
  23. Lean Cuisine® MARKETPLACE Chile Lime Chicken
  24. Lean Cuisine® MARKETPLACE Mushroom Mezzaluna Ravioli
  25. Lean Cuisine® MARKETPLACE Ranchero Braised Beef
  26. Lean Cuisine® MARKETPLACE Cheese and Bean Enchilada Verde
  27. Lean Cuisine® MARKETPLACE Cheese Tortellini
  28. Lean Cuisine® MARKETPLACE Ricotta Cheese & Spinach Ravioli
  29. Lean Cuisine® MARKETPLACE Spicy Beef & Bean Enchilada
  30. Lean Cuisine® MARKETPLACE Spicy Mexican Black Beans & Rice
  31. Lean Cuisine® Comfort Chicken Parmesan
  32. Lean Cuisine® Comfort Herb Roasted Chicken
  33. Lean Cuisine® Comfort Meatloaf with Mashed Potatoes
  34. Lean Cuisine® Comfort Salisbury Steak with Macaroni & Cheese
  35. Lean Cuisine® Comfort Shrimp Alfredo
  36. Lean Cuisine® Comfort Grilled Chicken Caesar
  37. Lean Cuisine® Craveables Four Cheese Pizza

 

By deceptively marketing the Products as having “No Preservatives,” Defendant wrongfully capitalized on, and reaped enormous profits from, consumers’ strong preference for food products made free of preservatives.

Plaintiff brings this proposed consumer class action on behalf of herself and all other persons in New York, who, from the applicable limitations period up to and including the present purchased for consumption and not resale any of Defendant’s Products.