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

Lawyers have opened an investigation into the failure of the TSS and OSS sensors in Ford Edge vehicles

Ford-Logo small

 

The TC (TSS) and Output Speed Sensor (OSS) are transmission speed sensors which are used to calculate the actual gear ratio of the transmission while in use. After registering data, the two transmission speed sensors, also commonly referred to as a vehicle speed sensor (VSS), send data to the Powertrain Control Module (PCM); which compares these two inputs and calculates which gear the transmission should be engaged for efficient driving.

Consumers have reported failure of these sensors resulting in the inability to accelerate and or harsh or improper shifting, both of which pose a significant safety issue for the occupants of the vehicle.

If you have a Ford Flex and experienced a problem with the TSS or OSS sensors of your vehicle we would like to hear from you. You may contact us privately using the contact attorney privately box below and/or share your story publicly using the submit button.

Attorneys open investigation on potentially defective drive shaft center bearing in 2002-2010 Porsche Cayenne vehicles

Porshce Large

Attorneys have opened an investigation of the 2002-2010 Porsche Cayenne (First Generation Porsche Cayenne) vehicles which have an allegedly defective drive shaft center bearing that is prone to premature failure.  When the drive shaft bearing or its support fails, it may lead to extreme vibration and noise, and may damage the drive shaft itself, which would affect the drivability of the vehicle.

This is a common issue in the 2002-2010 Porsche Cayennes that reportedly was corrected in later model years. Porsche dealers typically require replacement of the entire drive shaft if the drive shaft bearing fails. This repair will can cost several thousand dollars.

If you have experienced this issue and wish to discuss your legal rights, please use the contact a lawyer box below, or share your story publicly by simply submitting a response.

Kia Motors named in class action lawsuit over defective door locks in 2001-2006 Kia Optima vehicles

KIA_logo large

 

Plaintiff brings this action against Kia Motors America, Inc. (“Kia” or “Defendant”) for injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated owners of 2001-2006 Kia Optima automobiles (“the Class Vehicles”).

Plaintiff  is the owner of a 2003 Kia Optima automobile who began experiencing difficulty with the door locking mechanism on the front driver and passenger doors.  At first, after unlocking the doors with the key fob, merely touching the door handle would trigger the doors to lock preventing ingress into the vehicle and necessitate a manual unlocking of the vehicle from the outside.  Concurrently, the Plaintiff was no longer able to unlock the doors from the inside of the vehicle and could only do so from the outside.  On more than one occasion, as a result of the Door Lock Defect, Plaintiff was locked into the vehicle and could only exit by climbing over the front seat into the back of the vehicle and exiting the rear door.  After having been trapped in the front of the vehicle, Plaintiff could no longer take the risk of locking her vehicle while driving.

Over the next few months, even manually unlocking the doors became increasingly more difficult until that too became impossible. Soon the plaintiff was unable to unlock her front doors by any method (i.e. using the FOB or manually) which meant that her vehicle could no longer be locked (either when driving or when it was parked and left alone).

At this point her Kia Optima posed an unreasonable safety hazard.   A vehicle door lock that will not unlock on demand poses a clear and definitive safety risk to vehicle occupants who may need to egress the vehicle quickly in the event of a crash, vehicle fire, or other emergent circumstance.   But defective Kia optima door locks failed to assure that this could happen, as their defective nature meant that, as in Plaintiff’s case, the door could not actually be unlocked and opened on demand.

The defect also led to a corollary safety risk.  On the one hand, Plaintiff could not lock her doors without running the risk of being trapped inside in the event of an accident or if she could not contort herself in order to climb over the seats and exit the rear of the vehicle. On the other hand, forcing Plaintiff to drive the vehicle without  locking the doors in order to account for the defective door locks that could trap her in the car poses its own independent safety concern.

For decades, U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (“FMVSS”) have mandated that all cars on U.S. roadways be equipped with working vehicle locks.  See FMVSS 206.   As the National Highway and Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) has made clear, the purpose in mandating operational door locks in U.S.-driven vehicles is “to minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from a vehicle as a result of impact.” NHTSA Test Procedure for FMVSS No. 206 “Door Locks and Door Retention Components” (Feb. 19, 2010), at 2.  It is quite apparent, then that a vehicle door lock that is not locked by the driver or vehicle occupants for fear that doing so will prevent these occupants from unlocking the doors, therefore, fails to provide the door lock protection mandated and called for by FMVSS 206, thereby posing a serious safety concern of its own.

Plaintiff is not alone.  As demonstrated below, the internet shows hundreds of Kia owners complaining about the same problem.  Indeed, approximately 34% of the complaints lodged by Kia Optima owners of Class Vehicles on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) website were for this very Door Latch Defect.

Despite notice and knowledge of this defect from the numerous consumer complaints it has received, information received from dealers, NHTSA complaints, and its own internal records, Kia has not recalled the Class Vehicles to repair the defect, offered its customers a suitable repair or replacement free of charge, or offered to reimburse its customers who have incurred out of pocket expenses to repair the defect.  Upon information and belief, Defendant knew at the time of the original sale of Plaintiff’s vehicle of the existence of the Door Lock Defect but failed to disclose this defect to Plaintiff or to consumers of the Class Vehicles at large.

As a result of Defendant’s unfair, deceptive and/or fraudulent business practices, owners and/or lessees of Class Vehicles, including Plaintiff, have suffered an ascertainable loss of money and/or property and/or loss in value. The unfair and deceptive trade practices committed by Defendants were conducted in a manner giving rise to substantial aggravating circumstances.

Had Plaintiff and other Class members known about the Door Lock Defect at the time of purchase, they would not have bought the Class Vehicles, or would have paid substantially less for them.

As a result of the Door Lock Defect and the considerable monetary costs associated with attempting to repair such defect, Plaintiffs and Class members have suffered injury in fact, incurred damages and have otherwise been harmed by Kia’s conduct.

BMW named in class action lawsuit over defective timing chain tensioners in Mini Cooper vehicles

BMW Large

 

The class action complaint is brought against BMW and pertains to the following Mini Cooper vehicles: 2007 through 2010 Hardtop (R56), 2008 through 2010 Clubman (R55), and 2009 through 2010 Convertible (R57) (collectively, the “Defective Vehicles”). The Defective Vehicles have a defect within their timing chain tensioners that cost, at minimum, hundreds of dollars to fix and that can cause extensive engine damage (the “Defect”).

As alleged, the Mini Cooper is a distinctive vehicle containing the Price engine. Unlike most engines made for the consumer market, the Prince engine uses a metal timing chain rather than a “belt” made of composite materials. When the Prince engine was first introduced in 2004, Defendant touted the timing chain’s durability compared to a timing belt, and indicated that the timing chain would remain maintenance-free throughout the full running life of the engine. One of the features of the Prince engine Defendant has promoted is that the timing chain and tensioner are located inside the engine block. However, actual road use has shown a significant drawback to this design: if the chain fails, damage to the engine can be catastrophic.

According to Defendant’s warranties and maintenance program, the chain and tensioner do not require service, and the on-board computer does not monitor chain condition. Accordingly, problems with the timing chain tensioner can easily go unnoticed and cause serious damage to the vehicle.  A defective timing chain can cause damage to the engine and present serious safety concerns. When a chain tensioner fails, the vehicle will lose all power, even while it is in motion.

As further alleged, despite numerous customer complaints related to the Defect, including catastrophic engine failure, Defendant has systematically denied the existence of the Defect, and thus refused to honor any applicable warranties. As a consequence, Defendant has failed to reimburse vehicle owners for the costs they incur resulting from damages related to the failures of the timing chain tensioner, and/or refuses to provide repairs free of charge.

Samsung named in class action lawsuit over defects in Galaxy S mobile phone

As alleged in the complaint, Galaxy S mobile phones suffer from a software or hardware defect, which causes the phones to randomly freeze, shut down, and power-off while in standby mode, rendering the phones inoperable and unfit for their intended use and purpose.

After Samsung released the Galaxy S phones during the summer of 2010, consumers immediately contacted Samsung and Samsung’s authorized agents and resellers to complain about the defect. Consumers also have posted myriad complaints about the defect on Internet websites, including on Samsung’s own website. Samsung has admitted such a defect and suggested several alternate remedies to consumers, all without success.

According to the complaint, Samsung and its authorized agents and resellers provided Class members with ineffective and damaging “software updates” and phone resets and replacement Galaxy S phones suffering from the same defect. This inadequate  response has only perpetuated an endless cycle of futility for Plaintiff and for Class members and has not cured the defect or provided Class members a product that conforms to all express and implied warranties.

Samsung and its authorized agents and resellers have been unable or unwilling to repair the defect or offer Plaintiff and Class members a non- defective Samsung Galaxy S phone or reimbursement for the cost of such phone.

Plaintiff and Class members suffered injury and lost money or property as a result of purchasing a phone that repeatedly shuts off and loses data, purchasing a new phone just to ensure the ability to receive communications, and having expended time and resources addressing this issue with Samsung or its representatives without success. Samsung failed to remedy this harm, and Samsung earned and continues to earn substantial profits from selling defective Galaxy S phones.

Plaintiff brings this action against defendant Samsung on behalf of  California residents, who purchased a defective Samsung Galaxy S mobile phone.

Complaint: Samsung 7-23-13

Porsche investigated over faulty shifter cable in 911 and Cayman vehicles

Porshce Large

 

Lawyers have initiated an investigation of a potential defect in the shifter cable of Porsche 911 and Cayman automobiles.  According to the investigation, the shifter cables in these vehicles may be experiencing an abnormally high rate of failure.  Failure of the shifter cable of cars under warranty are being covered by Porsche, but out of warranty vehicles require owners to pay to fix the problem.

Failure of the shifter cable may result in the inability to shift gears or get the car into gear.  This is a safety hazard.

If you wish to discuss your legal rights with respect to this issue, please use the contact lawyer box below.  Also, if you have had similar experiences, please share them by posting or contact us directly below.

GM recalls 2012 and 2013 Buick LaCrosse and Regal; 2013 Chevrolet Malibu Eco vehicles equipped with eAssist

General Motors recalled certain model year 2012 and 2013 Buick LaCrosse and Regal, and model year 2013 Chevrolet Malibu Eco vehicles equipped with eAssist. These vehicles may have a condition in which the Generator Control Module (GCM) may not function properly. This could cause a gradual loss of battery charge and the illumination of the malfunction indicator light.

If the vehicle is continued to be driven, the engine may stall and/or the vehicle may not start. In addition, there may be a burning or melting odor, smoke, and possibly a fire in the trunk.

GM will notify owners and dealers will test the GCM and replace it, as necessary, free of charge. The manufacturer has not yet provided a notification schedule.

Chrysler recalls 2005-2010 Jeep Grand Cherokee vehicles over transfer case electrical failure

Chrysler Group LLC is recalling certain model year 2005-2010 Jeep Grand Cherokee vehicles manufactured February 11, 2004, through March 9, 2010; and 2006-2010 Jeep Commander vehicles manufactured January 31, 2005, through March 10, 2010. A transfer case electrical failure may result in an unintentional shifting of the transfer case into the neutral position.

If the vehicle shifts into neutral, it may roll away increasing the risk of a crash or personal injury.

Chrysler will notify owners, and dealers will re-flash the final drive controller which governs the transfer case, with new software, free of charge. The recall is expected to begin in June 2013.

Investigation of Apple iPhone 4 over power button failure

Attorneys are investigating claims that Apple’s iPhone 4 suffers from a faulty flex cable that controls the power button on the popular phone rendering unsuitable for its intended use.  There have been wide spread consumer complaints about the power button failure on these phones occurring right after the expiration of the one year warranty period but before the useful life expectancy of the phone expires.  Consumers seeking to fix or replace the phone for this issue are being charged $150 by Apple.