Author Archives: mike

Whirlpool named in class action for defective dishwashers

Posted on by

This action is brought to remedy violations of law in connection with Defendant’s marketing, design, manufacture, sales, performance, servicing and warranting of its Maytag brand dishwashers. The Dishwashers sell for a retail price of $350-$800.

Plaintiff alleges Whirlpool engages in unfair and deceptive conduct when selling Dishwashers. He and other purchasers of Dishwashers were deceived at the point of purchase because while Defendant represents that the Dishwashers do not require frequent repairs, Defendant fails to disclose the material fact that the Dishwashers have defective control panels that fail prematurely and frequently and require frequent and expensive repairs.

Plaintiff further alleges that the Dishwashers are not fit for their ordinary purpose, do not pass without objection in the trade, and are substantially certain to fail within their useful life. Whirlpool did not disclose either prior to, or at the time of purchase, any information to Plaintiff or Class members regarding the Dishwashers’ defective Control Panels.

Graco Children’s Products Inc named in class action lawsuit over allegedly unsafe car seats

Posted on by

 

This class action was brought on behalf of a class of California and nationwide consumers (“Class Members”) who purchased, within the applicable statutes of limitations period, a Graco car seat manufactured between January 1, 2009 and October 2012 that was equipped with a “Signature Buckle” (referred to herein as the “class car seats” or “the products”). These class car seats include, without limitation, any of the following models:

(a) Nautilus; (b) Nautilus Elite; (c) Argos 70; (d) MyRide 65; (e) MyRide 65 with Safety surround; (f) MyRide 70; (g) Comfort Sport; (h) Classic Ride 50; (i) Size4Me; (j) Step 2; (k) CozyCline; (l) SmartSeat; (m) Snugride; (n) Snugride 30; (o) Snugride 32; (p) Snugride 35;  (q) Step 1 Safe Seat; and (r) Snugride Click Connect 40.

This action concerns the advertisement and sale of defective child car seats by Defendants under the Graco brand name. The class car seats are defective in that the harness buckle which is a component of the car seats (the “Signature Buckle”) is either unreasonably difficult to unlatch, or simply will not unlatch.

Accoding to the complaint, numerous consumers have reported that they had to either struggle excessively to unlatch their child from the class car seats, had to cut the harness in order to remove their child from the car seats, had to manipulate their child out of the car seat while the harness was still buckled, or simply stopped using the car seat because it would not unbuckle.

The alleged defect includes the inability of the buckles to de-latch, even when dirty. Reasonable consumers expect that childrens’ car seats will get dirty and that even if some dirt accumulates in the latch, the buckles will open. To the extent that Defendants contend that the buckle malfunction is due to foreign material accumulating in the buckle and consumers’ failures to clean the buckle apparatus, Defendants failed to disclose, adequately or at all, material information regarding the necessary cleaning procedures for the car seats.

Defendants knew or should have known that the class car seats had one or more design and/or manufacturing defects which result in the failure of the harness buckle to operate as intended. The defects impede the ability of, or otherwise prevent, the safe and timely removal of the child from the car seat.

The defects pose an unreasonable safety hazard to consumers and/or their children because in the event of a vehicle accident it may be imperative to remove the child from the seat belt as quickly as possible to avoid further injury or death. According to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, “[c]ar crashes are the number one killer of children 1 to 12 years old in the United States.” Moreover, for other reasons, it may be imperative to remove the child from the car seat to avoid injury or death such as if the car becomes submerged in water, if the car is on fire, or if the child is suffering a medical emergency that necessitates quick removal from the car seat.

Because Defendants will not notify Class Members that the class car seats are defective, Plaintiff and Class Members and/or their children are subjected to dangerous conditions.

As alleged, Defendants knew about and concealed the defects in every class car seat, along with the attendant dangerous safety hazards, from Plaintiff and Class Members, at the time of sale and thereafter. In fact, instead of repairing the defects in the class car seats, Defendants refused to acknowledge their existence.

If Plaintiff and Class Members knew about these defects at the time of sale, Plaintiff and Class Members would not have purchased the class car seats or would have paid less for them.

Yucatan Foods named in class action over misleading consumers by disguising sugar in products as evaporated cane juice

Posted on by

Plaintiff brings this consumer class action on behalf of herself and all other persons who, from May 3, 2009 up to and including the present (the “Class Period”), purchased in Florida for consumption and not resale any of Yucatan’s products listing Evaporated Cane Juice (“ECJ”) in the ingredients.

During the Class Period, Yucatan engaged in a uniform campaign through which it purposefully misrepresented and continues to purposefully misrepresent to consumers that its products contain ECJ even though “evaporated cane juice” is not “juice” at all—it is nothing more than sugar, cleverly disguised. Further, ECJ is not the common or usual name of any type of sweetener, or even any type of juice, and the use of such a name is false and misleading.

Yucatan uniformly lists ECJ as an ingredient on its products, as well as on its website and other promotional material. As a result of these unfair and deceptive practices, Yucatan has collected millions of dollars from the sale of its products with ECJ that it would not have otherwise earned.

According to the FDA’s published policy, “evaporated cane juice” is simply a deceptive way of describing sugar, and therefore, it is false and misleading to dress up sugar as a type of “juice.” In October of 2009, the FDA issued Guidance for Industry: Ingredients Declared as Evaporated Cane Juice, which advised industry and that: [T]he term “evaporated cane juice” has started to appear as an ingredient on food labels, most commonly to declare the presence of sweeteners derived from sugar cane syrup. However, FDA’s current policy is that sweeteners derived from sugar cane syrup should not be declared as “evaporated cane juice” because that term falsely suggests that the sweeteners are juice…

Despite the issuance of the 2009 FDA Guidance, Yucatan did not remove the unlawful and misleading food labeling ingredient from their mis-branded food products.Such products mislead consumers into paying a premium price for products that do not satisfy the minimum standards established by law for those products and for inferior or undesirable ingredients or for products that contain ingredients not listed on the label.

Yucatan Products & Cabo Fresh Products with ECJ include: Authentic Guacamole, Mild Guacamole Organic-Mild Guacamole, Organic Guacamole Avo-Hummus, Spice Guacamole Mild Salsa, Ranch Guacamole Medium Salsa, Hummus Guacamole Bruschetta, 2 oz. Singles Guacamole, Guacamole Twinpack

Volvo named in class action lawsuit over defective Side Impact Protection System

Posted on by

This is a class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of a nationwide class of current and former Volvo vehicle owners and lessees of the Volvo 850 produced from 1997 (the “Class Vehicles “).

As alleged, Volvo’s Side Impact Protection System (SIPS) did not exist in the rear doors, despite the fact the Volvo 850 was marketed and advertised with steel bars on all four doors.

Instead of using a solid steel anti-intrusion door bar, as advertised, to prevent intrusion into the rear passenger compartment, Volvo opted to insert a small, flimsy, lightweight, unsupported piece of corrugated plastic into the rear doors of the Volvo 850.

The complaint alleges that the Volvo 850 was not crash worthy nor was it designed properly or advertised appropriately.

LifeScan, Inc. OneTouch Verio IQ Blood Glucose Meter – Class I Recall: Failure to Provide a Warning at Extremely High Blood Glucose Levels

Posted on by

The OneTouch Verio IQ Blood Glucose Meter is an over-the counter single-use device intended to be used by a patient outside of a health care facility as an aid to monitor the effectiveness of diabetes control measures sugar (glucose) in blood drawn from the fingertips. All OneTouch Verio IQ Blood Glucose Meters are being recalled and were distributed from December 14, 2011 through March 7, 2013.

At extremely high blood glucose levels of 1024 mg/dL and above, the OneTouch Verio IQ Meter will turn off instead of displaying the message “EXTREME HIGH GLUCOSE above 600 mg/dL” as intended. When turned back on, the meter enters the “Set-Up” mode and requires the user to confirm the date and time settings before being able to test again. However, if the glucose level is still measuring 1024 mg/dL or above when testing, the meter will shut down again.

FDA Investigates Safety of Added Caffeine to Variety of Products

Posted on by

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced that it will reexamine the safety of caffeine added to foods.  The decision was prompted by the release of a new caffeinated gum called Alert, manufactured by Wrigley, which hit markets Monday.

The last time FDA looked at caffeine as a food additive was in the 1950s when the agency set a limit on the amount of the substance that could be added to colas. Caffeine is on the agency’s list of ingredients that are  ”generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) when it comprises .02 percent of a cola beverage, but has not been regulated in other contexts.

Energy drinks are often exempt from the .02 percent limit because they are considered dietary supplements rather than food or drink.

Between 2004 and 2012, five people died after consuming Monster drinks, according to data from FDA. During this time period, 21 people experienced “adverse effects” after drinking Red Bull, although no deaths were reported.  In Canada, three deaths were reported after the consumption of Red Bull between 2003 and 2012.

Because so many artificially caffeinated food and drinks have hit the market since the time FDA considered caffeine in cola, FDA is taking a fresh look at the potential impact that the totality of new and easy sources of caffeine may have on the health of children and adolescents.

FTC releases survey showing estimated 25.6 million Americans fell victim to fraud

Posted on by

The Federal Trade Commission released a statistical survey of fraud in the United States during 2011, which showed that an estimated 25.6 million adults – 10.8 percent of the adult population – were fraud victims.

While fast-growing online commerce has benefitted consumers with greater choice and convenience, the survey indicates that, as of 2011, the Internet was also the place where consumers most often learned about fraudulent offers.  The Internet category, which included email, social media, auction sites and classified ads, was followed by print advertising, and TV and radio.  Most consumers bought fraudulent items via the Internet; telephone purchases ranked second.

The  survey asked consumers about 15 specific categories of fraud, and two general categories, and of the specific categories the top 10 were:

Weight-loss Products (5.1 million estimated)

Prize Promotions (2.4 million est.)

Unauthorized Billing for Buyers’ Club Memberships (1.9 million est.)

Unauthorized Billing for Internet Services (1.9 million est.)

Work-at-Home Programs (1.8 million est.)

Credit Repair Scams (1.7 million est.)

Debt Relief (1.5 million est.)

Credit Card Insurance (1.3 million est.)

Business Opportunities (1.1 million est.)

Mortgage Relief Scams (800,000 est.)

An estimated 17.3 percent of African Americans and 13.4 percent of Hispanics were victims; the rate for non- Hispanic whites was 9 percent.  The survey found that high school graduates were the least likely to have been fraud victims; those who did not complete high school were the most likely to have been victims.  Consumers who were more willing to take risks and those who had recently experienced a negative life event (such as a divorce, death of a family member or close friend, serious injury or illness in their family, or the loss of a job) were much more likely to have been victims.  Consumers who indicated they had more debt than they could handle were significantly more likely to have been fraud victims than those who were more comfortable with the amount of debt they had.

You can read a copy of the report here: FTC Fraud Survey

FTC Approves Final Order Settling Charges Against Cbr Systems, Inc. Which Exposed Nearly 300,000 Consumers’ Information

Posted on by

 Cbr Systems, Inc., the operator of a leading cord blood bank, agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it failed to protect the security of customers’ personal information, and that its inadequate security practices contributed to a breach that exposed Social Security numbers and credit and debit card numbers of nearly 300,000 consumers.

Cbr Systems is a leading provider of umbilical cord blood and umbilical cord tissue banking services.  Consumers pay to preserve and store a newborn’s cord blood and cord tissue because they contain stem cells, the use of which researchers are investigating to treat some diseases and conditions.

As part of the settlement, Cbr agreed to establish and maintain a comprehensive information security program. The company also must submit to security audits by an independent auditor every other year for the next 20 years. The settlement order also bars misrepresentations about the privacy, confidentiality, security or integrity of personal information collected from or about consumers.

In its privacy policy, Cbr claimed that “[w]henever CBR handles personal information, regardless of where this occurs, CBR takes steps to ensure that your information is treated securely and in accordance with the relevant Terms of Service and this Privacy Policy. . . . ” 

According to the FTC, Cbr failed to use reasonable and appropriate procedures for handling customers’ personal information, making its privacy policy claim deceptive under the FTC Act.  According to the complaint, Cbr did not have reasonable policies and procedures to protect the security of information it collected and maintained.  In addition, Cbr allegedly created unnecessary risks to personal information by, among other things, transporting backup tapes, a thumb drive, and other portable data storage devices containing personal information in a way that made the information vulnerable to theft.  According to the FTC, Cbr also failed to take sufficient measures to prevent, detect, and investigate unauthorized access to computer networks.

The FTC charged that Cbr’s failures to provide reasonable and appropriate security for consumers’ personal information contributed to a December 2010 security breach during which unencrypted backup tapes containing consumers’ personal information, a Cbr laptop, a Cbr external hard drive, and a Cbr USB drive were stolen from a Cbr’s employee’s personal vehicle in San Francisco, California.  According to the complaint, the unencrypted backup tapes included, in some cases, the names, gender, Social Security numbers, dates and times of birth, drivers’ license numbers, credit and debit card numbers, card expiration dates, checking account numbers, addresses, email addresses, telephone number and adoption type (e.g., open, closed, or surrogate) of approximately 298,000 Cbr customers.

 The FTC complaint also alleges that the unencrypted Cbr laptop and unencrypted Cbr external hard drive contained network information, including passwords and protocols, that could have permitted an intruder to access Cbr’s network, where sensitive personal health information was stored.

FTC settles with DR Phone Communications over deceptive marketing of prepaid calling cards

Posted on by

The cards tested by the FTC averaged just 40 percent of minutes advertised. According to the FTC’s complaint, filed in May 2012, DR Phone Communications markets and sells prepaid calling cards.  The cards are often sold in grocery and convenience stores, and at kiosks in other retail establishments.  The cards are especially popular with members of immigrant communities, many of whom depend on prepaid cards to stay in touch with family overseas

Since at least September 2010, the complaint states, the calling minutes actually delivered to consumers who bought the defendants’ prepaid cards were substantially less than promised in their marketing, advertising, and promotions.  The FTC bought samples of the defendants’ cards in September 2010 and November 2011, and of the 169 card tested, all failed to deliver the number of minutes prominently advertised on their point-of-sale posters. In all, the defendants’ cards delivered on average only 40 percent of the minutes promised, with 52 cards delivering less than 25 percent of the minutes advertised, and 25 cards delivering less than five percent of the minutes advertised.

Based on these results, the Commission charged the defendants with violating the FTC Act by misrepresenting the number of calling minutes the cards would provide, and failing to disclose adequately fees that would reduce the cards’ value, and in turn the number of calling minutes they provide.

The settlement permanently bars DR Phone Communications from making any material misrepresentations in connection with the marketing and sale of prepaid calling cards, including those about the number of minutes delivered and per-minute rates.  It also requires them to clearly and prominently disclose all material limitations of their prepaid calling cards, including:

The existence of all fees and when they will apply; That the advertised calling minutes are available only on a single call, if applicable; Any limit on the time during which the advertised rates or number of minutes are available; and When the calling card expires, if it does.

In addition, the proposed order requires the defendants to put procedures into place for five years to ensure the accuracy of their marketing materials and to prevent retailers from displaying expired marketing materials.  They also are required to end their relationships with any distributor who doesn’t display accurate marketing materials.

Finally, the proposed order imposes a judgment of $61,597, representing the total amount consumers lost using the cards between September 2010 and June 2012.

MacMillan settles E-Book prices lawsuit

Posted on by

Macmillan, has agreed to pay $20 million to settle price fixing and collusion claims brought against it and other publishers and Apple Inc. (AAPL) over the sale of electronic books..

The agreement settles both a lawsuit brought by U.S. states and a consumer class-action lawsuit, and follows an agreement MacMillan reached with the Justice Department resolving anti-trust issues in February. Other publishers had already settled with both the states and the Justice Department.