This consumer class action arises from defective Theta II engines found in hundreds of thousands of Hyundai and Kia vehicles in the United States.
As alleged, the Theta II engine’s fuel injection system causes contaminants to enter the engine’s oil supply. Initial symptoms of the Defect include a knocking noise from the engine, a reduction in engine power, and engine stalling events (the “Defect”). When the level of contaminants in the oil supply sufficiently thicken the Theta II engine’s oil supply, the engine fails, leading to an immediate loss of engine power and power steering. The Defect thus creates a safety hazard for not only the vehicle’s occupants but the occupants of nearby vehicles. Countless consumer complaints to Hyundai, Kia and traffic safety authorities detail the safety risks and economic burdens of vehicles prone to total and unexpected engine failure.
The only remedy for the Defect is replacing the engine with another defective Theta II engine. Though the Defect is covered by Defendants’ written 10-year, 100,000 mile powertrain warranties, Defendants routinely deny warranty coverage to engines consumed by the Defect by blaming the engine-killing oil sludge on inadequate maintenance or the use of aftermarket oil filters.
Between 2015 and 2017, Defendants recalled 1.5 million vehicles with Theta II engines in North America. Each recall addressed knocking noises, engine stalls, and sudden engine failures. Though the recalls cover Theta II engines manufactured over a five-year period in at least two continents, in each instance, Defendants attributed the recall to the same underlying cause: leftover metal debris in the engine from the manufacturing process.
Reports suggest that in 2016, a Hyundai engineer informed the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) that Defendants have long been aware that the Theta II engines possess a design flaw affecting all Theta II engines. These reports are consistent with the experience of Plaintiff and countless other owners and lessees of vehicles with defective Theta II engines that have not been recalled (the “Class Vehicles”). Non-recalled Theta II engines are failing because of the Defect in numbers that in some cases exceed the failure rates of recalled vehicles.
This case seeks protection and relief for owners of the Class Vehicles for the harm they have suffered, and the safety risks they face, from Defendants’ unfair, unlawful, and deceptive trade practices.
StarKist is one of the largest producers of seafood products in the United States. As alleged, StarKist’s products contain a mislabeling representations that causes consumers to falsely believe that StarKist products are healthier than products made by other food manufacturers. Specifically, StarKist prominently displays the American Heart Association
“Heart-Check Mark” on products. The complaint contends that reasonable consumers see the Heart-Check Mark and would mistakenly believe that a product with a Heart-Check Mark is healthier than a product without a Heart-Check Mark. In truth, however, the Heart-Check Mark is nothing more than a paid endorsement which Starkist fails to inform the consuming public.
As alleged, the Nestle labels SweeTARTS as if they contain only natural ingredients and are flavored only with natural ingredients when the Product actually contains undisclosed artificial flavors in violation of state and federal law. Defendant’s packaging, labeling, and advertising scheme is intended to give California consumers the impression that they are buying a premium, “all natural” product with natural flavoring ingredients instead of a product that is artificially flavored.
Plaintiff, who was deceived by Defendant’s unlawful conduct and purchased the Products in California, brings this action on her own behalf and on behalf of California consumers to remedy Defendant’s unlawful acts.
The complaint is based upon research funded by the United States Department of Agriculture, and published in the Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, which found a number of Krill Oil manufacturers included less krill oil than the amount represented on the label. With respect to CVS Krill Oil, the study found it only contained 60% of the 300mg of Omega-3 Krill Oil represented
The objective of the underlying study was to assess EPA and DHA label declarations of fish, krill, and algal oil dietary supplements in the USA. The researchers concluded that the quality of fish oil supplements is not being adequately monitored by manufacturers or government agencies.
A number of other krill oil manufacturers were implicated in short changing consumers. Also included as a defendant was the manufacturer of the krill oil for CVS, LANG PHARMA NUTRITION.
Eat Real Foods USA, LLC manufactures and sells snack products made from lentils, chickpeas and quinoa under the brand “EatReal” accompanied by slogans and advertising promoting the healthy and unique aspects of its Products. The complaint pertains to “Quinoa Puffs,” “Quinoa Chips,” “Lentil Chips,” and “Hummus Chips” (the “Products”), sold to consumers in bags of various sizes through third-parties via brick-and-mortar stores and online.
As alleged, though the Quinoa Puffs lists “Quinoa Puffs” as the first and most predominant ingredient, the listing of its sub-ingredients reveals “Corn Meal” present in an amount greater than quinoa. Similarly, the Quinoa Chips list “Quinoa Flour” as the first ingredient, the second ingredient is “Corn Flour” and the fourth ingredient is “Corn Starch,” making it probable that corn is present in the Quinoa Chips in an amount greater than quinoa. The Lentil and Hummus Chips’ lists lentil flour and chickpea flour as their first ingredients. However, because lentil flour (48%) and chickpea flour (45%) are each present in an amount less than half, it is probable that the substantive, non-flavoring ingredients are actually present in an amount which exceeds lentil and chickpea flour.
As alleged, the labeling of these products misleadingly suggest that the Products either consist entirely of quinoa, lentils and chickpeas or at a minimum that those ingredients are present in an amount which greatly exceeds any other non-substantive ingredients. This impression is reinforced by each Product being prominently identified with a large circle denoting the specific flavor – i.e., White Cheddar Flavor – such that they will conclude the flavor is “White Cheddar” when actually the Products are corn, rice and potato snacks that are flavored with quinoa, lentils and chickpeas.
This is a class action lawsuit alleging that GM’s single panel dash board installations are inherently defective, prone to crack, and create an unreasonable safety hazard
As alleged, all GM Vehicles have Defective Dashboards that are designed, manufactured, and/or installed in such a way that they will crack. The cracks occur in GM Vehicles stored in all environments and in substantially uniform locations and presentations on the instrument panel. GM knew all this when it marketed and sold the GM Vehicles. To this day, GM is engaged in a systematic campaign to conceal the Defective Dashboards and the related safety risks—falsely representing to customers that the cracks are merely cosmetic.
According to the complaint, the Defective Dashboards reduce the GM Vehicles’ value and compromise the safe deployment of the airbags. Because GM has not remedied the defects in the dashboards installed on the GM Vehicles, a customer who replaces a Defective Dashboard would simply receive another Defective Dashboard. The cost to replace the Defective Dashboard with another Defective Dashboard, including parts and labor, can exceed $2000 for Plaintiffs and class members. Worse still, GM has failed and refused to cover the necessary repair and replacement under its warranty.
As a result of GM’s practices, Plaintiffs and the other Class members have suffered injury in fact and have lost money or property, including economic damages.
This case arises out of Defendants’ deceptive, unfair, and false practices regarding their marketing of their Annie’s Naturals® salad dressings (the “Products”). As alleged, Defendants intentionally and conspicuously represent that the Products are “Natural.” The products further recite on the front bottom: “No artificial flavors, synthetic colors or synthetic preservatives.” The reasonable consumer would think, as did the Plaintiff, that the Products are “all Natural.” The Products, however, are not “all Natural” because they contain Xanthan Gum, a “Synthetic Ingredient.”
This action seeks to remedy the deceptive and misleading business practices of Olivina Napa Valley LLC (hereinafter “Defendant”) with respect to the marketing and sales of the following Olivina Men products (hereinafter the “Products”):
Olivina Men All-In-One Body Wash Bourbon Cedar
Olivina Men Rinse Out I Leave In Conditioning Cream
Olivina Men Bourbon Cedar Aluminum-Free Deodorant
As alleged, Defendant manufactures, sells, and distributes the Products using a marketing and advertising campaign centered around claims that appeal to health conscious consumers, i.e., that its Products are “Naturally Pure.” This representation leads consumers to believe that the product contains natural ingredients. However, Defendant’s advertising and marketing campaign is false, deceptive, and misleading because the Products contain synthetic ingredients.
Plaintiff and those similarly situated (“Class Members”) relied on Defendant’s misrepresentations that the Products are “Naturally Pure” when purchasing the Products. Plaintiff and Class Members paid a premium for the Products over and above comparable products that did not purport to be “Naturally Pure.” Given that Plaintiff and Class Members paid a premium for the Products based on Defendant’s misrepresentations that they are “Naturally Pure” Plaintiff and Class Members suffered an injury in the amount of the premium paid.
This is a class action on behalf of a California class of consumers who purchased Lakewood Organic Juices (“Juices”) made by Florida Bottling bearing the phrases “cold pressed” and “fresh pressed” on their labels.
Lakewood markets a diverse line of pure organic and premium fruit juice products. Lakewood represents that its Juices are both “cold pressed” and “fresh pressed.” As alleged, these representations are false and misleading because Lakewood Juices are heat processed (pasteurized).
By law, the term “fresh,” when used on a food label in a manner that suggests or implies that the food is unprocessed, means that the food has not been subjected to thermal processing or any other form of preservation. Accordingly, juice that has been pasteurized cannot be labeled with the term “fresh.”
The term “cold pressed” is a non-thermal processing method that uses high pressure to kill bacteria rather than heat thereby maintaining most of the juice’s nutrients and living enzymes, which otherwise get destroyed by heat. Again, according to the complaint. juice that has been cold pressed cannot simultaneously be pasteurized.
Lakewood represents to consumers that its Juices are both cold pressed and fresh pressed in bold, italic, underlined, and large font on the front labels of the Juice bottles. But the truth is that Lakewood Juices are neither. In-deed, on the back of the label, in much smaller print, buried in the middle of a paragraph, Lakewood describes its Juices as pasteurized—a fact that renders the representations on the front of the Juice labels false and misleading.
Pure Brazilian, LLC (‘Defendant”) manufactures Pure Brazilian Coconut Water through two main production steps. The first is the extraction of coconut water through slicing it in half or perforating it at the top, which releases the liquid into a collection tray before being bottled. The second is high pressure processing, where the bottles are subjected to pressure up to 87,000 pounds per square inch (“psi”). This reduces the biological, enzymatic and bacterial activity, but increases shelf life from 3-5 days to 6-8 weeks.
Defendant represents its product as “cold pressed” and “pure” on the front label, while statements on the back stress “Live Pure” and “Drink Pure.”
Cold pressing is a juice extraction method where pressure is applied to the pulp of fruits and vegetables, resulting in the liquids contained therein being released. Consumers pay a premium for a cold pressed juice product because it means more nutrients are retained than if a centrifugal machine like a blender was used.
As alleged, it is false to describe the Products as cold pressed because the juice inside a coconut is not extracted through a pressure mechanism. By highlighting an extraction step and not disclosing the processing step, consumers are misled into believing the Product is not modified from its original state. Reasonable consumers interpret the term “pure” in the context of juice to describe and identify an unprocessed and untreated product. Because coconut water is available in an unprocessed and untreated form, defendant’s “pure” representation falsely signifies that its Products are of a higher quality and value than they actually are.