Trump University settles class action lawsuit alleging it defrauded students


The parties have reached a $25 million settlement on behalf of former Trump University students to resolve a number of class actions and an action by the New York Attorney General. To get a payment, you must submit a claim form by March 6th.

The lawsuits generally  allege that “Trump University” and Trump violated federal law across the country and state law (in California, Florida and New York) by promising, but not delivering access to Trump’s real estate techniques taught by “hand-picked” professors at an elite “university,” when in fact Trump was not substantively involved in the Live Events curriculum or selecting the instructors and the New York State Education Department had warned Trump it was unlawful to call it a “university.”

You must submit a claim form on or before March 6, 2017 to get a payment from the settlement.

Visit the settlement website for more details:

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.

The Procter & Gamble Company named in class action over deceptively advertising pampers as clear and natural


Procter & Gamble prominently labels, markets and advertises its Pampers baby wipes (“Pampers Wipes” or the “Product”) as “natural.” This claim is false, deceptive and likely to mislead a reasonable person because Pampers Wipes contains chemicals that are synthetic, not natural. These chemicals can also cause skin irritation and other problems. Parents seeking natural products for their babies are not receiving the product promised them, but instead are purchasing a mis-branded product containing synthetic chemicals. These chemicals include dimethicone, phenoxyethanol, and ethyhexyl glycerin.

Proctor & Ganmble 7-14-16

Playtex named in class action lawsuit over mispresenting SPF of Banana Boat Kids SPF 50 sunscreen



This is a proposed class action, brought on behalf of all those who purchased Banana Boat Kids SPF 50 in the United States between June 27, 2010 and the present.

As alleged in the complaint, Banana Boat Kids SPF 50 purports, in both the product name and in several prominent places on the product label, to have an “SPE” of 50, the maximum amount of SPF protection which the law allows a sunscreen product to claim.

SPF, which stands for “Sun Protection Factor, is an objectively verifiable and scientifically measurable level of sunburn protection provided by a sunscreen. The higher the SPF, the more UV radiation is filtered out and the more protection is provided.

The complaint claims that despite the inclusion of the words “SPF 50” in the name of the product itself, and despite the fact that the uniformly-worded product label states in several places that the product has an “SPF 50, rigorous scientific testing has revealed that Banana Boat Kids SPF 50 has an actual SPF of only 8.; a significantly lower level of sunscreen protection.

Ralph Lauren named in class action lawsuit over false advertisement of market prices, and phantom “savings,” on clothing sold in its retail outlet stores



The class action lawsuit accuses Ralph Lauren of false and misleading advertisement of “market” prices, and corresponding phantom “savings,” on clothing and fashion apparel sold in its retail outlet stores.

The complaint alleges that defendants continually misled consumers by advertising clothing and fashion apparel at discounted, “savings” prices. Defendants would compare the “sale” prices to false “market” prices, which were misrepresented as the “market” retail prices from which the “savings” was discounted. The advertised discounts were nothing more than mere phantom mark-downs because the represented market prices were artificially inflated and were not the original or “market” prices for clothing and fashion apparel sold at Defendants’ retail outlet stores. In addition, the represented “market” prices were not the prevailing marketing retail prices within three months next immediately preceding the publication of the advertised former prices, as required by California law.

As further alleged, Ralph Lauren would disseminate their deceptive pricing scheme to consumers through promotional materials, in-store displays, and print advertisements. For example, in Defendants’ retail outlet stores, the pricing scheme is prominently displayed, advertising deep discounts, including “40% off” various items throughout the store.

In truth, the purported “market prices” never existed and/or did not constitute the prevailing market retail prices for such products within the three months immediately preceding the publication of the sales tag. The difference between the “sale” and “regular” prices is a false savings percentage used to lure consumers into purchasing products they believe are significantly discounted.

FTC issues warning Letters to 45 contact lens prescribers and 10 contact lens sellers warning them of potential violations of the agency’s Contact Lens Rule



According to the law, an eye doctor must give the consumer a contact lens prescription after a fitting. It’s the law. The Contact Lens Rule is intended to facilitate the ability of consumers to comparison shop for contact lenses while ensuring that sales occur only in accordance with a valid prescription.  Under the Rule, prescribers fitting patients for contact lenses are required to give them their prescription at the end of the fitting. Prescribers also are prohibited from charging additional fees for releasing the prescription and from obligating a patient either to buy contact lenses from them, or to sign a waiver, before releasing a prescription.

Sellers may provide contact lenses to consumers only after either obtaining a copy of a valid prescription or, alternatively, verifying the prescription with the prescriber. Sellers may not dispense lenses using an expired prescription, and may only substitute lenses under certain conditions, as specified in the Rule.

The letters issued by the FTC warn the prescribers and sellers that violations of the Rule may result in legal action, including civil penalties of up to $16,000 per violation.

Has this happened to you? Share your story or contact us directly to inquire about your legal rights.

The FTC on Super (un)natural product claims

In a recent post by Seena Gressin, Attorney, Division of Consumer & Business Education, we get a glimpse of the FTC’s view of “natural”

For lovers of word-association games: what words leap to mind when you think of “all natural” ingredients?

Did you pick “Dimethicone,” “Phenoxyethanol,” or “Polyethylene”? Perhaps “Butyloctyl alicylate,” “Polyquaternium-37,” or “Neopentyl Glycol Diethylhexanoate”? No? Well, not to worry — you haven’t lost the game. But five companies that tagged products that contained one or more of these ingredients as “all natural” or “100% natural” are now rethinking their strategy.

The FTC alleged the companies misrepresented their personal care products — including sunscreens, moisturizers, shampoos, conditioners, and shower gels — by describing them as “all natural” or “100% natural” when they contained one or more synthetic ingredients.

According to the FTC, the claims showed up in product names, such as “All Natural Hand and Body Lotion,” sold under the trade name ShiKai by Trans-India Products, Inc., of Santa Rosa, Calif., and “Coconut Shea All Natural Styling Elixir,” sold under the trade name EDEN BodyWorks by ABS Consumer Products, LLC, of Memphis, Tenn.

The FTC said the claims also showed up in product ads. For example, The Erickson Marketing Group Inc., of Arvada, Colo., which uses the trade name Rocky Mountain Sunscreen, and California Naturel, Inc., of Sausalito, Calif., both advertised their sunscreens as “all natural,” while Beyond Coastal, of Salt Lake City, touted its sunscreen as “100% natural.”

Four of the companies have agreed to proposed orders that would prohibit them from claiming that any product is 100% natural unless they have reliable evidence to back up the claim. The orders also would require them to have proof for any claims they make about the products’ environmental or health benefits. The Commission issued a complaint against the fifth company, California Naturel, seeking the same relief.

How can you avoid being burned by misleading “all natural” claims for sunscreen and other products? Take the claims with a non-synthetic grain of salt, check out the ingredients list on the package, and please visit our website for information about shopping for products that claim to have health or beauty benefits.


According to the FTC, each of the following companies made the all-natural claim in online ads:

  • Trans-India Products, Inc., doing business as ShiKai, based in Santa Rosa, California, markets “All Natural Hand and Body Lotion” and “All Natural Moisturizing Gel” both directly and through third-party websites including and The lotion contains Dimethicone, Ethyhexyl Glycerin, and Phenoxyethanol. The gel contains Phenoxyethanol.
  • Erickson Marketing Group, doing business as Rocky Mountain Sunscreen, based in Aravada, Colorado, uses its website to promote “all natural” products such as the “Natural Face Stick,” which contains Dimethicone, Polyethylene, and other synthetic ingredients.
  • ABS Consumer Products, LLC, doing business as EDEN BodyWorks, based in Memphis, Tennessee, markets haircare products on its own websites and at It makes “all natural” claims for products including “Coconut Shea All Natural Styling Elixer” and “Jojoba Monoi All Natural Shampoo.” In reality, the products contain a range of synthetic ingredients such as Polyquaternium-37, Phenoxyethanol, Caprylyl Glycol, and Polyquaternium-7.
  • Beyond Coastal, based in Salt Lake City, Utah, uses its website to sell its “Natural Sunscreen SPF 30,” describing it as “100% natural.” However, it also contains Dimethicone.
  • California Naturel, Inc., located in Sausalito, California, sells supposedly “all natural sunscreen” on its website, though the product contains Dimethicone. The Commission has issued a complaint alleging that California Naturel has made deceptive “all natural” claims in violation of Sections 5 and 12 of the FTC Act.

The proposed consent orders bar the four settling respondents from misrepresenting the following when advertising, promoting, or selling a product: 1) whether the product is all natural or 100 percent natural; 2) the extent to which the product contains any natural or synthetic components; 3) the ingredients or composition of a product; and 4) the environmental or health benefits of a product.

The orders require the respondents to have and rely on competent and reliable evidence to support any product claims they make. Some claims require scientific evidence, which is defined as tests, analyses, research, or studies that have been conducted and evaluated objectively by qualified individuals using procedures generally accepted in the profession to yield accurate and reliable results.

More information can be found at the FTC website.

Do you use a product that claims to be all natural, but isn’t? Share with your fellow readers or contact us to take action.


RelayRides named in a class action suit over illegal charges


RelayRides is in the business of connecting customers seeking to rent an automobile with automobile owners seeking to provide their personal or business automobiles for rent. RelayRides’ customers must create an account on RelayRides website and, much like with a traditional car-rental company, can then browse through and select a desired car to rent, the time period for the rental, and the method of payment.

As alleged, RelayRides charges penalty “Admin. Fees” to rake in extra money from its customers. RelayRides charges its customers twice, once for the purported damage that they may have caused and once more as a penalty for having caused the damage. Because the “Admin. Fees” have nothing to do with any damage RelayRides may suffer from a customer’s breach of contract, the “Admin. Fees” are a windfall for Defendant.

Plaintiff brings this case as a class action challenging Defendant RelayRides, Inc.’s imposition of penalty “Admin. Fees” on its car-rental customers in violation of California Civil Code § 1671(d) and other provisions of California law.

Plaintiff and the members of the proposed plaintiff class are individuals nationwide who (1) were RelayRides customers who used RelayRides services any time before November 2015 and incurred an Admin. Fee and (2) RelayRides customers who used RelayRides at any time and incurred an Admin. Fee and timely opted-out of RelayRides’ recent arbitration provision added to its website’s terms of service.

Class Action Complaint



Honest named in class action lawsuit alleging products contain hidden sodium lauryl sulfate



As alleged, Honest claims to be a consumer goods company that is “free from fraud or deception” because it is “genuine, real” and “respectable, praiseworthy.” The truth is, however, that Honest is effectively a marketing company. It gets its products from other manufacturers and then places the “Honest” label on them. It uses the “Honest” brand name, which is the subject of numerous federal trademark and service mark registrations and applications, as a marketing strategy to convey to consumers that the Company’s business practices and products are honest, truthful, and “free from fraud or deception.” In so doing, Honest intends for consumers, in making their purchasing decisions, to rely on this overall commercial impression conveyed by the “Honest” brand name.

Chief among Honest’s specific claims are that its products do not contain sodium lauryl sulfate (“SLS”). Honest highlights the absence of SLS because, according to Honest itself, SLS is a “known irritant. This is so well known, in fact, that it’s commonly used in lab testing to intentionally harm skin.”

According to the complaint, Defendants’ claims concerning the absence of SLS are untrue and misleading. As Defendants admit, Honest’s multi-surface cleaner, laundry detergent, and dish soap contain an ingredient called sodium coco sulfate (“SCS”). SLS is a major ingredient in SCS and many scientists treat SLS and SCS as interchangeable. In fact, independent testing has found that Honest’s laundry detergent contains the same amount of SLS as Proctor & Gamble Co.’s laundry detergent, Tide.

Plaintiff and California consumers were misled by Defendants’ statements regarding the absence of SLS from Honest’s products, and the use of the “Honest” brand name for Defendants’ products, and bought these products based on these false, misleading, and deceptive representations. Accordingly, Plaintiff and the Class (as defined herein) have suffered injury as a result of Defendants’ false advertising, warranty breaches, misbranding, and unlawful marketing of Honest’s products, and brings this class action to remedy Defendants’ unlawful acts.

Class Action Complaint

Paleohacks named in class action lawsuit over failure to disclose and properly inform consumers about the company’s use of automatic renewal or continuous service offers


Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf all persons in the United States who, within the applicable statute of limitations period, purchased subscriptions for any products (such as Paleo snack products) from Paleohacks, LLC

As alleged, Defendant made automatic renewal or continuous service offers to consumers in and throughout the United States and failed to provide an acknowledgment that includes the automatic renewal or continuous service offer terms, cancellation policy, and information regarding how to cancel in a manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17602(a)(3) and 17602(b).

The Complaint claims that as a result, all goods, wares, merchandise, or products sent to Plaintiff and Class Members under the automatic renewal of continuous service agreements are deemed to be an unconditional gift pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17603.