Evanger’s Dog and Cat Food Co. and Nutripack named in class action lawsuit over harmful ingredients in pet food

Evanger’s Dog and Cat Food Co. and Nutripack, LLC produce high-end pet foods that are specifically marketed to label-conscious consumers but that, contrary to their labels, contain harmful ingredients. The pet foods were advertised as premium, “100% beef,” and “human grade, USDA inspected meat,” but instead were composed of low quality, non-human grade ingredients and were produced at an unsanitary, non-USDA facility. Many of the Pet Foods were unsafe, adulterated meats, not from animals that were identified on the labels, and contained pentobarbital, a barbiturate used in the euthanizing of animals, the execution of humans and in physician-assisted deaths Plaintiffs’ use of these products led to the sickness of several of Plaintiffs’ pets, and the death of one.

Complaint

Henkel named in class action lawsuit over 30% slack fill in Purex Crystals packaging

Henkel named in class action lawsuit over 30% slack fill in Purex Crystals packaging

This is a class action based on alleged deceptive actions of Henkel Corporation with respect to the packaging of its Purex Crystals product.

Defendant sells the Purex Crystals product as “an in-wash fragrance booster, which provides freshness that lasts for weeks. Use a little or a lot, directly in the laundry! Safe for all loads including towels, activewear, and children’s sleepwear.”

On its website, Defendant states: “Purex® Crystals infuses your clothes with an extraordinary freshness that puts the finishing touch on your laundry and makes everyday a little more rewarding. With the exciting variety of fragrances Purex® Crystals offers, it’s easy to find a fragrance to match every laundry occasion. Whether it’s a relaxing freshness for your sheets or a more stimulating scent for you and your family’s activewear, Purex® Crystals has you covered. Have fun and try them all!”3

Plaintiff expected to receive a full container of the Purex Crystals product, which is packaged in non-transparent containers, as depicted below. Plaintiff was surprised and disappointed when he opened the Purex Crystals product to discover that the container had more than 30% empty space, or slack-fill. Had Plaintiff known about the slack-fill at the time of purchase, he would not have bought Defendant’s product.

Complaint

Hyundai named in class action lawsuit over defect in steering mechanism in Accent and Elantra vehicles

Plaintiffs filed this class action on behalf of a class of Hyundai Accent and Elantra owners alleging the vehicles were sold with a faulty steering mechanism.  According to the complaint, a defect in Hyundai’s steering mechanism causes the power steering to stop working suddenly, causing the wheel to lock or become difficult or impossible to turn at all.

The faulty steering mechanism is found on at least the following models: Hyundai Accent (model years 2013-2016) and Hyundai Elantra (model years 2013-2016), collectively defined as the “Vehicles.” Hyundai’s defective steering mechanism severely inhibits drivers’ ability to react to and/or avoid other cars, pedestrians, or obstacles. The Vehicles’ steering defects have been the subject of a large number of consumer complaints.

The complaint contends that Hyundai has long known about the problem but has not notified consumers. Previous Hyundai models had the same or a similar defect, which Hyundai was slow to acknowledge. Indeed, in 2016, Hyundai issued a recall concerning a similar defect in 2011 Sonata vehicles. The steering problem was caused by conflicting steering wheel input data which caused the power steering to turn off.

Complaint

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.

Complaint

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.

Complaint

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.

Complaint

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.

Complaint

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.

Complaint