Walgreen named in class action over sale of joint supplement containing glucosamine

This is a class action brought on behalf of those who have purchased, in the State of Florida, a Walgreen Co. joint supplement containing glucosamine, chondroitin and/or other ingredients that were falsely labeled and represented to “rebuild cartilage.”

Walgreens sold a line of glucosamine and chondroitin supplements with the false promise and deceptive warranty that its products “rebuild cartilage.”   As alleged, Walgreens was fully aware, that it is physically and biologically impossible to “rebuild” cartilage that has been lost or damaged.

Walgreens sold the Walgreens Products throughout the State of Florida by taking advantage of consumers’ reasonable but unattainable desire to reverse the damage done to their cartilage.

The lawsuit seeks redress on behalf of all consumers in Florida who purchased Walgreens glucosamine and chondroitin supplements from October 2006 to December 2012 that were sold with a label promising that the product would “rebuild cartilage.”

Honest Tea named in class action lawsuit for being dishonest about product labeling

Honest Tea’s marketing and promotion of bottled Honest Tea Honey Green Tea is dishonest. This is a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Honest Tea Honey Green Tea (“Honey Green Tea”), which Defendants market as a source of antioxidant green tea flavonoids. According to the complaint, Honest Tea Honey Green Tea does not contain the amount of antioxidants touted on the label.

As alleged, Plaintiff purchased numerous bottles of Honey Green Tea, which did not contain the amount of “antioxidants green tea flavonoids” represented on the label. Independent testing by a laboratory retained by Plaintiff’s counsel determined that 16.9 fluid ounce bottles of Honey Green Tea contained an average of 186.7 mg of flavonoids per bottle. While Honest Tea claims on their website and in their “Keeping It Honest Mission Report” that they use “honesty and integrity” to craft their products, the testing showed that the total flavonoids per bottle is 24% below the “247 mg Antioxidants Green Tea Flavonoids Per Bottle” highlighted on the label.

The Complaint claims Honest Tea is cheating purchasers by providing less antioxidants than purchasers are paying for.

Eli Lilly named by an employee in a class action lawsuit over wage violations

This is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of Plaintiff and all other persons similarly situated against Eli Lilly and Company and Lilly USA, LLC for its failure to pay salary incentives contracted for and earned by Plaintiff and other members of the Class.

The class consists of : All LILLY Fixed Duration Employees (“FOE’.’) who, during the class period, did not receive (1) a sales incentive (“VOB”), and/or (2) a Customer Value Metric (“CVM”), and/or (3) a Service Value Chain (“SVC”), and/or (4) the value of a Reward Recognition Trip (“RRT”), payments as a result of their scheduled termination date occurring before the completion of the time period used for calculating said amounts.

Lilly is a pharmaceutical company which is principally engaged in the design, development, manufacture, and selling of pharmaceutical products in the United States and throughout the world. LILLY is the tenth (10th) largest pharmaceutical company in the world.

Plaintiff was employed by LILLY as a Senior Sales Representative and was hired as a “Fixed Duration Employee” whose employment would end on a specified future date. Throughout Plaintiffs employment with LILLY. Plaintiff contracted for and received regular salary incentives for meeting certain individual and team goals. In fact, as part of its offer of employment to all Fixed Duration Employees, LILLY promised specific incentives to Plaintiff as additional components of her total salary package. Plaintiff and other Fixed Duration Employees received these incentives on a quarterly, bi-annual, or annual basis, depending on the type of salary incentive.

4LILLY also promised that Plaintiff would receive the incentives she earned through the end of her contractual term. However, when Plaintiffs employment term came to an end, LILLY failed to pay Plaintiff and other Fixed Duration Employees the incentives they had earned prior to their scheduled termination date.

Plaintiff brings this suit on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated to recover all damages resulting from LILLY’s failure to pay the incentives contracted for by LILLY and its Fixed Duration Employees.

PepsiCo settles class action lawsuit over deceptive labeling of Naked Juice

This lawsuit claims that Naked Juice violated certain state and federal laws and consumer protection statutes in connection with the advertising, labeling, or marketing of its Products as “100% Juice,” “100% Fruit,” “From Concentrate,” “All Natural,” “All Natural Fruit,” “All Natural Fruit + Boosts,” or “Non-GMO” (or Non-Genetically Modified Organism).  The lawsuit claims that the Eligible Products (see below) contain ingredients that are not “All Natural” and contain GMOs (or Genetically Modified Organisms).

If the Settlement is approved and becomes final, it will provide benefits to Class Members. Naked Juice will pay $9,000,000 to a Settlement Fund to make payments to Class Members who file valid claims by submitting a Claim Form at www.NakedJuiceClass.com.

Class members are entitled to make claims up to $45.00 without proof of purchase.

 

The products include:

• AÇAÍ MACHINE (formerly known as PURPLE MACHINE and RAIN FOREST AÇAÍ)

• APPLE

• APPLE CRANBERRY

• BERRY BLAST (formerly known as BERRY BLAST WELL BEING)

• BERRY PROBIOTIC

• BERRY VEGGIE (formerly known as BERRY VEGGIE MACHINE)

• BLACK AND BLUEBERRY (formerly known as BLACK AND BLUEBERRY RUSH)

• BLUE MACHINE

• CARROT

• CHAI SPICED CIDER

• CHERRY POMEGRANATE (formerly known as CHERRY POMEGRANATE POWER)

• CITRUS LEMONGRASS (REDUCED CALORIE) (formerly known as CITRUS LEMONGRASS)

• GOLD MACHINE

• GREEN MACHINE

• LYCHEE (REDUCED CALORIE)

• MANGO VEGGIE

• MIGHTY MANGO (formerly known as MIGHTY MANGO WELL BEING)

• O-J

• ORANGE CARROT

• ORANGE MANGO (formerly known as ORANGE MANGO MOTION)

• ORGANIC CARROT

• PEACH GUAVA (REDUCED CALORIE)

• PEACH MANGOSTEEN (formerly known as PEACH MANGOSTEEN BLISS)

• POMEGRANATE (formerly known as PLENTIFUL POMEGRANATE)

• POMEGRANATE AÇAÍ

• POMEGRANATE BLUEBERRY

• POWER-C MACHINE (formerly known as POWER-C)

• PROBIOTIC TROPICAL MANGO

• PROTEIN ZONE

• PROTEIN ZONE BANANA CHOCOLATE

• PROTEIN ZONE DOUBLE BERRY

• PROTEIN ZONE MANGO

• RAZALICIOUS

• RED MACHINE

• STRAWBERRY BANANA (formerly known as STRAWBERRY BANANA C and STRAWBERRY

BANANA WELL BEING)

• STRAWBERRY KIWI (formerly known as STRAWBERRY KIWI KICK)

• TANGERINE SCREAM

• TROPICAL (REDUCED CALORIE) (formerly known as TROPICAL C and TROPICAL)

• WATERMELON CHILL

Campbell Soup Company and the American Heart Association named in class action over improper use of Heart-Check Mark

The AHA claims that its mission is “to build healthier lives, free of cardiovascular diseases and stroke. That single purpose drives all we do.” This worthy mission is, in truth, tainted by what the AHA does not tell the public: that for a fee, the AHA will allow manufacturers of unhealthy, processed foods – including over thirty varieties of Campbell’s canned soups – to place the AHA’s certification and endorsement on products that run directly counter to the AHA’s stated mission.

As alleged, the AHA’s nationally recognized “Heart-Check Mark” certification thus fools consumers by misrepresenting that products bearing the Heart-Check Mark certification meet the AHA’s heart-healthy nutritional guidelines. That misrepresentation (or omission of the true facts) is unfair, deceptive, and misleading, because the AHA’s Heart-Check Mark certification does not signify adherence to those guidelines.

As alleged herein, the AHA, for a fee, abandons its general, non-commercial dietary and nutritional guidelines – which categorically rule out unhealthy processed products, including Campbell’s soups, as demonstrated below – and agrees to certify as heart-healthy products that merely meet the minimum criteria for certain FDA-regulated health claims, rather than the AHA’s own more demanding standards. This deceptive practice not only causes consumers to overpay for Campbell’s AHA-certified soups, but also presents substantial health risks to all consumers, including the more than five million American consumers suffering from congestive heart failure.

The AHA’s Heart-Check Mark certification scheme runs directly counter to its non-commercial nutritional guidance. Instead of aiding the consuming public, the AHA’s certification scheme confuses and misleads the consuming public, because it employs standards that have nothing to do with the AHA’s general nutritional guidelines.

As a result, the AHA certifies products that are far less healthy, and far less heart healthy, than it otherwise advises consumers to eat. A single serving of Campbell’s AHA certified soups contains nearly three times the amount of sodium permitted by the AHA’s noncommercial nutritional guidelines, while a full can contains between six and seven times that amount.

As stated in the complaint, the case is not only about AHA’s willingness to mislead consumers for a fee; it is also about the manufacturers who are willing to pay that fee, and funnel other monies to the AHA, in furtherance of schemes to prey upon consumer demand for products that are legitimately healthy.

By the AHA selling, and Campbell’s buying, the right to affix the AHA’s seal of approval to its products, they falsely represent to the public that AHA-certified products manufactured by Campbell’s possess some cardiovascular benefit not enjoyed by products that have not been certified by the AHA. In truth, however, the only difference between AHA certified Campbell’s products and non-certified competing products is that Campbell’s has paid money to the AHA to license its logo.

The AHA benefits from the monies paid to it by food manufacturers and the advertising and organizational name recognition that come from having its logo placed on millions of food containers. Campbell’s benefits by being able to affix the AHA’s Heart-Check Mark logo on the products for which it has paid for it and is able to enjoy increased sales and higher profits due to their premium pricing and perceived health advantage. These benefits to Campbell’s and AHA, however, come at the substantial cost to Plaintiff and the other Class members, both in the form of purchasing falsely labeled products based on Defendants “heart healthy” pretext, and materially overpaying for those products.

 

The complaint is brought on behalf of all individuals in the United States who purchased any Campbell’s “Healthy Request” soup bearing an AHA Heart-Check Mark symbol on its label.

Conair sued over defect in Infiniti Pro 1875 hair dryer

Conair is one of the world’s largest privately held health and beauty companies and has been around for more than 50 years. It develops, designs, manufactures and sells health and beauty products nationwide through direct website sales and through nationwide retailers such as Sam’s Club, Wal-Mart, Target and CVS Pharmacies. Conair holds the number one position in the industry with hair dryers.

The Conair Infiniti Pro 1875 Watt hair dryer is marketed by Conair as being quiet and fast drying attributed to its powerful AC motor which Conair claims lasts three times longer than DC motor hair dryers. Conair expressly states in its advertising materials and packaging that it “Guarantees up to 3x longer life”. Conair is so confident in this claim, it provides a four-year limited warranty with the Hair Conair warrants the Infiniti Pro hair dryer against defect in material or workmanship for four years from the date of purchase. In numerous cases the Hair Dryer caught fire and ceased working within one to two years of purchase.

Plaintiff’s Hair Dryer caught fire and ceased to work 10 months after purchase. In August 2012 while using the Hair Dryer to dry her hair, the Hair Dryer sputtered and began emitting from the Hair Dryer. This sudden fire so close to her head caused Plaintiff to drop the dryer to the ground where it ignited her carpet. The Hair Dryer continued to run despite the fact it was plugged into a GFCI outlet. The Hair Dryer is also equipped with two different types of “safety plugs” one of which is the ALCI or Appliance Leakage Current Interrupter. The ALCI is designed to recognize a change in the electrical current. This “safety” feature did not prevent the Hair Dryer from bursting into flames. Plaintiff immediately unplugged the Hair Dryer and put out the flames on her carpet which was permanently scorched by the event.

The defect typically occurs within the first year or so of use. The defect’s presence is material because the defect causes the Hair Dryer to catch fire, exposing consumers to potential serious injury. The defect is material because neither Plaintiff nor a reasonable consumer would have purchased the defective Hair Dryer had they been aware of its propensity to catch fire during normal use and even when it is plugged in but not in use.

From at least 2009 to as recent as May 2013, consumers nationwide have posted complaints of the same problem with this Hair Dryer on consumer websites, including but not limited to, consumeraffairs.com. Consumers consistently reported the Hair Dryer sparking and catching fire during normal use and sometimes even when the Hair Dryer was turned off. The complaints also reflect early and continued manifestation of the defect and Conair’s refusal to recall the product or even to publicly warn consumers of the danger.

The complaint is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all “consumers” residing in the United States who purchased, not for resale, a Conair Infiniti Pro 1875 watt Salon Performance hair dryer (“Hair Dryer”) at any time in the four years preceding the filing of this action

Walgreens named in class action lawsuit over false advertisement of glucosamine and chondroitin supplements

According to the complaint, Walgreens sells a line of glucosamine and chondroitin supplements with the false promise and deceptive warranty that its products “rebuild cartilage.” As Walgreens is fully aware, however, it is physically and biologically impossible to “rebuild” cartilage that has been lost or damaged. Walgreens sells its products by taking advantage of consumers’ reasonable but unattainable desire to reverse the damage done to their cartilage.  The complaint references a number of studies which find that glucosamine was no more effective than a placebo in treating the symptoms of knee osteoarthritis.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of all consumers in Pennsylvania that purchased a Walgreens glucosamine and chondroitin supplement from October 2006 to the present that were sold with a label promising that the product would “rebuild cartilage.”

Toyota recalls 2005-2010 Tacoma Access Cab vehicles over seat belt safety issues

Toyota is recalling certain model year 2005-2010 Tacoma Access Cab vehicles manufactured September 14, 2004, through March 29, 2010; and model year 2011 Tacoma Access Cab vehicles manufactured July 1, 2010, through September 7, 2011. If the access doors are repeatedly and forcefully closed, the screws that attach the seat belt pre-tensioner to the seat belt retractor can loosen over time. If the screws loosen completely, the seat belt pre-tensioner and the retractor spring cover could detach from the seat belt retractor.

If the seat belt pre-tensioner detaches from the seat belt assembly, the seat belt pre-tensioner will not perform as designed, increasing the risk of injury in a severe crash.

Toyota will notify owners and will inspect the seat belt assemblies. Based on the inspection, the seat belt assembly will be replaced or new pre-tensioner screws will be installed with thread-locking sealant and a retractor spring cover with stopper ribs to prevent loosening of the screws. These services will be provided at no cost to the owner.

Flagstar Bancorp Inc. settles ERISA class action lawsuit

A federal judge in Michigan on July 29 granted preliminary approval to a $3 million settlement of claims by Flagstar Bancorp Inc. 401(k) plan participants that the plan fiduciaries breached their duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by offering company stock as an investment option.  The class consists of plan participants who had portions of their plan accounts invested in Flagstar common stock or fund units in the Flagstar Stock Fund between Dec. 31, 2006, and May 2, 2013.  The settlement class is estimated at 2,893 participants

The lawsuit alleged that Flagstar Bancorp Inc. and certain of its officials breached their fiduciary duties by offering Flagstar stock as an investment option to plan participants at a time when it was imprudent to do so and by concealing the risk of investing in Flagstar stock.

“The complaint refers to at least ten statements by Flagstar announcing losses or declining profits, at least three announcing a reduction or suspension of dividend payments and one announcing that Flagstar would be shrinking its mortgage loan origination business. The complaint also refers to at least ten negative reports offered by analysts or published by the financial media. Those reports include, among other matters: a January 2008 report from Moody’s Investors Service indicating ‘that continued losses would likely lead [Flagstar’s] rating to junk status’; an October 2008 determination by Merrill Lynch to lower Flagstar’s rating from ‘Buy’ to ‘Underperform’; a November 2008 Morningstar Financial article reporting concerns with ‘Flagstar’s business and finances’; and an article in late 2009 or early 2010 that described Flagstar as ‘a black hole.’ As late as August 2009, the complaint alleges, Flagstar was known to have a rate of non-performing loans that was more than double the five percent rate considered ‘unsafe and unsound,'” the court said.

Barbara’s Bakery settles class action lawsuit over mislabeling of products

 

A Settlement was reached in a class action naming Barbara’s Bakery over the marketing and sale of certain of its products. The Settlement is on behalf of consumers who bought Barbara’s Bakery Cereals, Cereal Bars, Cheese Puffs, Crackers Fig Bars, Granola Bars Organic Mini Cookies, Snack Mixes, Snackimals Animal Cookies products from May 23, 2008 to July 5, 2013.

Barbara’s Bakery will pay $4 million into a Settlement Fund to pay: (1) money to eligible consumers, (2) notice and administration costs, (3) attorneys’ fees and costs, and (4) a special service payment to the Class Representative.  Barbara’s Bakery has also agreed to change some of its business practices, including modifying its product labels and advertising and certain manufacturing practices.  Any money remaining in the Settlement Fund after all claims are paid will be donated to charities and non-profit organizations.  Additional details are in the Settlement Agreement available on the website. www.BarbarasBakerySettlement.com