Netgear named in class action lawsuit over a defect in CM700 cable modem

This is a class action brought on behalf of purchasers of the NETGEAR CM700 cable modem (the “Modem”) sold by Defendant NETGEAR, Inc. (“Netgear”). A cable modem is a device that allows cable subscribers to connect to broadband Internet service.

As alleged in the complaint, since its launch in 2016, Netgear marketed the Modem as a reliable high-end modem that is “ideal for the fastest Internet speed service plans.” However, Netgear failed to disclose that the Modem contains a serious defect that prevents it from operating properly. News reports and customer complaints since the release of the Modem indicate that it suffers from high spikes in network latency—delays in data communication over the network—that degrades users’ Internet connectivity.

Plaintiff purchased a Modem for personal use and suffered network latency, an experience shared by many purchasers of the Modem. Despite this widespread defect, Netgear has not announced a recall of the affected model, or otherwise offered to repair or replace it.

By shipping Modems with this defect, Netgear sold consumer goods that were substantially below the quality generally available in the market, were not fit for the for the Internet connectivity for which they were generally used, and were not adequately packaged and labeled.


Odwalla named in class action lawsuit over “no added sugar” representations on its labels

This is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all persons in the United States who purchased one or more containers of Odwalla 100% Juices, including Berry Greens, Groovin’ Greens, and 100% Orange Juice, with the phrase “No Added Sugar” on their label or outer packaging (collectively “Odwalla Juice”)

Plaintiffs action arises out of the unlawful “No Added Sugar” statements placed by Defendants on the labels and outer packaging of o.dwalla Juice containers. The Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) regulations promulgated pursuant to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act of 1938 (“FDCA”) specify the precise nutrient content claims concerning sugar that may be made on a food label. See 21 C.F.R. § 101, Subpart D. As alleged, Defendants’ “No Added Sugar” claims on its Odwalla Juice containers fail to comply with these requirements.


Weleda, Inc named in class action lawsuit for selling cosmetics as Natural despite containing synthetic ingredients

Defendant Weleda, Inc manufactures, sells, and distributes the Products using a marketing and advertising campaign centered around claims that appeal to health conscious consumers, i.e., that their Products are “Certified Natural” and/or “Natural”. However, Defendant’s advertising and marketing campaign is false, deceptive, and misleading because the Products contain synthetic ingredients.

Plaintiff and those similarly situated relied on Defendant’s misrepresentations that the Products are “Certified Natural” and/or “Natural” when purchasing the Products. Plaintiff and Class Members paid a premium for the Products in comparison to comparable products that did not purport to be “Certified Natural” and/or “Natural”. Given that Plaintiff and Class Members paid a premium for the Products based on Defendant’s misrepresentations that they are “Certified Natural” and/or “Natural”, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered an injury in the amount of the premium paid.

A full list of the products named in the lawsuit and the synthetic ingredients they contain can be found in the complaint. COMPLAINT

Bed Bath & Beyond named in a class action lawsuit over sale of Perfect Touch and Crowning Touch, bed linens


This case involves the marketing and sale of bed linens falsely labeled as “100% Egyptian Cotton” by retailer Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. (“BB&B”). For years, under the label Perfect Touch and Crowning Touch, BB&B sold bed linens, manufactured by Welspun India, Ltd. (“Welspun”), labeled as “100% Egyptian Cotton.” Egyptian cotton, due to its quality and scarcity, commands a premium in the market.

Welspun, a large home textile manufacturer based in India and with offices in the United States, manufactures and distributes bed linens and other home textiles to BB&B and other retailers. BB&B is Welspun’s largest customer.

In August 2016, BB&B’s competitor, Target announced that its investigation showed that Welspun uses inferior and less expensive cottons in many of its bed linens labeled “100% Egyptian Cotton.” Target ended its relationship with Welspun, and Welspun admitted, “Without any ambiguity, the fault is on our side.”

In response to Target’s announcement, BB&B ordered an external audit of textiles from Welspun but has continued to sell its products. Because of BB&B’s conduct, consumers who purchased Welspun bed linens at BB&B overpaid for an inferior product. This action seeks full recompense for consumers.


Church & Dwight Co named in class action lawsuit for false made in the USA claims on Trojan condoms


According to the complaint, California law is clear: Merchandise may be labeled as “Made in the USA” if either: (1) all nondomestic parts constitute no more than 5% of the final wholesale value of the product; or (2) a manufacturer can show that a specific part could not be obtained within the U.S. and that part does not constitute more than 10% of the final wholesale value. Otherwise, a manufacturer may not label its products as “Made in U.S.A.,” “Made in America,” “U.S.A.,” or use similar words to convey that its products are made in the United States.

As alleged, Church & Dwight falsely advertises and markets at least two of its Trojan brand condoms, Magnum Thin Ultrasmooth and Magnum Ecstasy Ultrasmooth (collectively, the “Products”) as being “Made in U.S.A.” when, in fact, nondomestic parts comprising natural latex used in the Products constitute more than 10% of the Products’ final wholesale value.


Church & Dwight Co., makers of Vitafusion B Complex Energy, Adult Vitamins, Gummies, named in class action lawsuit for false labeling


This is a consumer class action on behalf of purchasers of Vitafusion B Complex Energy, Adult Vitamins, Gummies, natural strawberry flavor (hereinafter “Vitafusion”). Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and members of the Classes, and contrary to the express representations made on its label, Vitafusion contains an excessive and potentially dangerous amount of the synthetic form of folate which, if known to Plaintiff and members of the Classes, would have caused Plaintiff and members of the Classes not to purchase or use Vitafusion.

Vitamins, including folate, play a crucial role in health. Recognizing the important role that folate plays in health, the Office of Dietary Supplements for the National Institutes of Health (hereinafter, “NIH”), recognizes the recommended daily allowance level for folate of 400 mcg. Similarly, because of the important role that folate plays in health, several foods are fortified with folic acid, the synthetic form of folate.

In recent years, consumers wishing to ensure that they obtain the proper amount of vitamins, such as folate, have increasingly turned to nutritional supplements.

Defendant warranted, advertised and sold Vitafusion throughout the United States, including in the State of Illinois and in this District as containing 400 mcg of folate, the recommended daily allowance cited by NIH. However, just as there is a recommended daily allowance for folate, NIH also recognizes an Upper Tolerable Intake Limit (“UL”) for the synthetic form of folate that is used in supplements and fortified foods. The UL for folic acid, synthetic folate, from dietary supplements and fortified foods for an adult is 1000 mcg. Exceeding the UL for folate can lead to nerve toxicity, blurry vision, nausea and vomiting, numbness, high blood sugar, skin lesions, liver toxicity, or liver damage.

According to the complaint, despite its extensive sales, and despite labeling Vitafusion as containing 400 mcg per gummy, Defendant does not ensure that Vitafusion actually contains the 400 mcg of folate listed on its label.

Instead, unbeknownst to Plaintiff and members of the Classes, Vitafusion actually contains 1232 mcg of synthetic folate (folic acid), an amount that exposes consumers of Vitafusion to the risks associated with excess intake of synthetic folate. This renders Vitafusion effectively worthless. Far from providing the NIH recommended amount of folate, Vitafusion instead exposed Plaintiff and members of the Classes to an unsafe level of folate.

Despite having knowledge that Vitafusion’s labeling is deceptive, misleading, and constitutes a fraud on consumers, Defendant continues to advertise, distribute, label, manufacture, market, and sell Vitafusion in a false, misleading, unfair, and/or deceptive manner, still claiming, falsely that Vitafusion contains a safe amount of synthetic folate, not the potentially dangerous amount it actually contains.

As a result of Defendant’s unlawful and deceptive conduct, Plaintiff and members of the Classes have been harmed, both by purchasing a product under false pretenses and by ingesting a product that increased their risk to various diseases.

L’Oréal named in class action over caustic ingredients in Soft Sheen-Carson Optimum Salon Haircare brand Amla Legend Rejuvenating Ritual Relaxer Kit

This is a class action against L’Oréal, USA, Inc. and Soft Sheen-Carson, LLC. Plaintiff seeks damages and equitable remedies for herself and the putative Class, which includes consumers who purchased Soft Sheen-Carson Optimum Salon Haircare® brand Amla Legend Rejuvenating Ritual Relaxer Kit (hereinafter “the Product”).

The Product is part of Defendants’ Amla Legend product line, as indicated by the large, bold letters on the front and center of the Product’s packaging. In their marketing and advertising materials, Defendants represent that their Amla Legend products, which include the Product, are a “secret ritual for hair rejuvenation,” and that “Amla oil’s intense moisture will rejuvenate every strand, leaving you with thicker-looking, healthier hair,” with “unique properties [that] prevent breakage, restore shine, manageability and smoothness.”

Defendants specifically market the Product to African American women as an “easy no-mix, no-lye relaxer kit that ensures an easier relaxing process for unified results and superior respect for hair fiber integrity”.

As alleged, an inherent design and/or manufacturing defect in the Product causes significant hair loss and skin and scalp irritation, including burns and blistering (collectively “the Injuries”). At no time did Defendants provide Plaintiff with adequate disclosure or warning about the potential dangerous hazards of using the Product as directed by Defendants, of which Defendants have knowledge. Instead, Defendants make numerous assertions regarding the values of Product’s purported safe and gentle qualities in their labeling, marketing and advertising materials, including that the Product is “NO-LYE”, (i.e., does not contain Sodium Hydroxide), is a “rejuvenating ritual” that “refills as it relaxes for amazingly lively-looking hair”, “protects [the] scalp & skin”, has “anti-breakage” properties, provides “unified results and superior respect for hair fiber integrity,” and contains a “powerful anti-oxidant rich in vitamins and minerals.”

Consumers damaged by the Product often have permanent hair loss. Plaintiff and the putative Class Members have suffered injury in fact and loss of money and/or property as a result of using Amla Relaxer.

Unknown to Plaintiff or the putative Class the Product contained, and continues to contain, Sodium Hydroxide, also known as Caustic Soda or Lye (hereinafter “Lye”), and other caustic ingredients or combination of ingredients that causes Injuries upon proper application. Further, the instructions on how to “test” the Product and how to apply the Product are so woefully inadequate they are virtually useless.

Lye is a very strong and caustic ingredient that can and does cause Injuries, including significant hair loss, skin and scalp irritation, burns, blistering, and may also compromise the immune system.

As a result of the defective nature of the Product, it is unfit for its intended use and purpose.


Honda named in class action lawsuit alleging defect in the HandsFreeLink™ system

Honda introduced the Bluetooth® HandsFreeLink™ system in its 2004 model year Acura vehicles. Honda promotes Acura as its luxury brand, offering advanced technology and high performance. The HandsFreeLink™ system was initially offered as a luxury add-on but soon became a standard feature of Acura models. The hands-free interface of the HandsFreeLink™ allows drivers to use their phones without using their hands. Drivers “pair” a smartphone with the car, allowing calls to be made using a microphone and the speakers in the car, and enabling the phone to receive voice commands such as “call home” or “call my office” through the car’s system to dial certain numbers or places.

As alleged, the HandsFreeLink™ system is defective. It becomes locked into the “on” position even if not in use and remains “on” even after the car’s ignition switch is turned off. Once locked “on,” the HandsFreeLink™ unit exerts a continuous, substantial, and (in Honda’s words) “parasitic” electric drain on the vehicle’s electric system. This drain depletes and consumes batteries, and leads to premature failure of other essential electric components—such as alternators, which are forced to compensate for the failing batteries. Acura owners are left with cars that will not reliably start, electrical systems prone to fail even while the car is being driven, and essential electrical parts such as batteries and alternators that must be serviced and replaced.

The complaint contends that Honda has known about this defect in the HandsFreeLink™ system since at least June 2005 but has not warned its customers. As a result, Plaintiff and class members have had to pay out of pocket to replace drained batteries and other electrical components, unaware that the real problem is the HandsFreeLink™ system. By the time customers discover the defect resides in the HandsFreeLink™ system (if they ever do), the warranty period is typically expired. Thus, Plaintiff and class members are left to choose between replacing the costly HandsFreeLink™ unit—with no guarantee that the replacement HandsFreeLink™ unit will not also be defective— or paying to disconnect their HandsFreeLink™ system and losing the use of this feature entirely.

Honda continues to sell and lease vehicles with HandsFreeLink™ without disclosing the defect to consumers. 5. Plaintiff seeks relief for himself and a class of all other consumers who purchased or leased Acura vehicles equipped with a HandsFreeLink™ system under California law or, in the alternative, a class of Acura owners in Washington, to redress the harm they have suffered as a result of this defective technology. Plaintiff requests an award of damages and appropriate equitable relief, including an order enjoining Honda from continuing to sell vehicles with the defective HandsFreeLink™ system and requiring Honda to disclose the defect to current Acura owners and repair their vehicles.

Fiat named in class action over use of defeat devices to falsify fuel efficiency, performance, and emissions statistics

The complaint alleges that Fiat intentionally installed of so-called defeat devices on an estimated 104,000 diesel Dodge and Jeep vehicles sold in the United States since 2014 (“Defeat Device Vehicles”). Defendants marketed those vehicles as environmentally friendly vehicles that possessed better fuel efficiency, better performance, and lower emissions. Although Defendants successfully marketed these expensive cars as “clean,” their environmentally-friendly representations were a sham. Defendants did not actually make cars with those desirable and advertised attributes.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), Defendants installed their “defeat device” in at least their 3.0-liter EcoDiesel-powered 2014-2016 Dodge RAM 1500 pickup trucks and 2014-2016 Jeep Grand Cherokee sport utility vehicles.

Instead of delivering on their promise of superior fuel economy coupled with low emissions, Defendants devised a way to make it appear that their cars did what they said they would when, in fact, they did not.

The defeat devices Defendants designed and installed work by switching on the full emissions control systems in Defendants’ cars only when the car is undergoing periodic emissions testing. The technology needed to control emissions from Defendants’ cars to meet state and federal emissions regulations, reduces their performance, limiting acceleration, torque, and fuel efficiency.

To hide this, the defeat device simply shuts off most of the emissions control systems in the car once the car has completed its emissions test. While that might have made the car more fun to drive, it resulted in Defendants’ cars sending excess NOx emissions into the environment than is allowed under the Clean Air Act and state regulations.

Jaguar named in class action over defect in the vehicle’s infotainment systems

Plaintiff brings this action for actual damages, equitable relief, including restitution, injunctive relief, and disgorgement of profits, and all other relief available on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals and entities (the “Class”) who own, lease or have owned or have leased model year 2016 or 2017 Jaguar XE, Jaguar XF, Jaguar XJ or Jaguar F-Pace vehicles (hereinafter, collectively, the “Vehicles”) manufactured and/or sold by Jaguar.

All of the claims asserted herein arise out of Jaguar’s design, manufacture, and warranting of the Vehicles, as well as Jaguar’s advertising, promoting, marketing, distributing, selling and leasing of the Vehicles as one of the most dependable, safe, and reliable vehicles available.

One of the features of each Vehicle is the multimedia and navigation system (commonly referred to as the “Infotainment System”) that features a touchscreen with touch and swipe controls for the operation of key vehicle functions including navigation, music, phone, climate and driver assistance systems.

The Vehicles are designed and manufactured with uniform and inherent design defects in the Infotainment Systems that cause one or more of the key vehicle functions to fail and renders them unusable (“Defect”).

As a result of the Defect, the Infotainment System and key vehicle functions fail to operate or function as designed. These resulting Vehicle failures from the Defect include, without limitation, failure of the Infotainment System screen to appear on Vehicle start-up, rear camera failing to appear or to function as designed, front parking sensors failing to activate as designed, freezing of satellite radio, failure to recognize USB media, intermittent Bluetooth connectivity and Infotainment System remaining powered after Vehicle shutdown.