Apple settles class action suit over failure to honor warranty claims associated with water damage.

Apple Inc. agreed to pay $53 million to settle a class-action suit associated with warranties for iPhones and iPods.  The money is to be distributed to approximately 153,000 customers who had been denied warranty coverage under an Apple policy associated with handling water damage.

The lawsuit suit stemmed from technology Apple built into its iPhones and some iPod music players that was designed to indicate when the devices had come into contact with liquid, such as through submersion or a large spill.

According to the complaint, Apple had a “liquid damage policy,” which required Apple’s employees to deny warranty coverage for any device if the liquid indicator had been triggered by changing color. The plaintiffs alleged that the indicators, which were manufactured by 3M Co., could be triggered by moisture or humidity during ordinary use.

Penguin settles allegations of price fixing e-book prices for $75 million

The lawsuit asserts that Penguin actively participated in a price-fixing scheme orchestrated by Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) that artificially raised e-book prices and created a virtual cartel, eliminating any retailer competition on price.

The $75 million settlement, if approved by the court, would resolve claims filed by 33 states against Penguin as well as class-action lawsuits filed by consumers alleging that the company’s behavior violated unfair competition laws, causing consumers to overpay for e-books.

This settlement is with 33 state attorney generals. Late last year, Penguin settled similar claims with the Department of Justice. Under that settlement, Penguin agreed to end its allegedly anticompetitive agreements with Apple and other retailers for a period of two years.

The states and the Department of Justice are scheduled to face Apple in a civil trial regarding these claims beginning on June 3, 2013.

The settlement with Penguin must be approved by the court. A hearing is expected later this summer.

Dendreon Corporation settles securities class action

The settlement class includes all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Dendreon common stock between April 29, 2010, and August 3, 2011, inclusive:

A hearing will be held with respect to the settlement on August 2, 2013, at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable James L. Robart in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, 700 Stewart Street, Courtroom Suite 14106, Seattle, WA 98101.

The purpose of the hearing is to determine whether the proposed settlement of the securities class action claims asserted in this litigation, pursuant to which Defendants will pay or cause to be paid the sum of $40,000,000.00 in cash into a settlement fund in exchange for the dismissal of the litigation and a release of claims against Defendants and their related persons and entities, should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the Class, which includes all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Dendreon common stock between April 29, 2010 and August 3, 2011, inclusive, excluding the Defendants, and their Related Persons (as defined in the Stipulation of Settlement).

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Dendreon common stock at any time between April 29, 2010 and August 3, 2011, inclusive, and were damaged thereby, you may be potentially eligible to share in the distribution of the settlement fund if you submit a claim form no later than September 7, 2013, establishing that you may be entitled to a recovery.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Dendreon common stock at any time between April 29, 2010 and August 3, 2011, inclusive, and were damaged thereby, you have the right to object to the settlement, the plan of allocation and/or the request by Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses, or otherwise request to be heard, by submitting for receipt no later than July 12, 2013, a written objection in accordance with the procedures described in a more detailed notice that has been mailed to persons known to be purchasers or other acquirers of Dendreon common stock between April 29, 2010 and August 3, 2011, inclusive.  You also have the right to exclude yourself from the class by submitting for receipt no later than July 12, 2013, a written request for exclusion from the Class in accordance with the procedures described in the more detailed notice.  If the settlement is approved by the Court, you will be bound by the settlement and the Court’s final order and judgment, including the releases provided for in the final order and judgment, unless you submit a timely and valid request to be excluded.

More information may be found at

Graco Children’s Products Inc named in class action lawsuit over allegedly unsafe car seats


This class action was brought on behalf of a class of California and nationwide consumers (“Class Members”) who purchased, within the applicable statutes of limitations period, a Graco car seat manufactured between January 1, 2009 and October 2012 that was equipped with a “Signature Buckle” (referred to herein as the “class car seats” or “the products”). These class car seats include, without limitation, any of the following models:

(a) Nautilus; (b) Nautilus Elite; (c) Argos 70; (d) MyRide 65; (e) MyRide 65 with Safety surround; (f) MyRide 70; (g) Comfort Sport; (h) Classic Ride 50; (i) Size4Me; (j) Step 2; (k) CozyCline; (l) SmartSeat; (m) Snugride; (n) Snugride 30; (o) Snugride 32; (p) Snugride 35;  (q) Step 1 Safe Seat; and (r) Snugride Click Connect 40.

This action concerns the advertisement and sale of defective child car seats by Defendants under the Graco brand name. The class car seats are defective in that the harness buckle which is a component of the car seats (the “Signature Buckle”) is either unreasonably difficult to unlatch, or simply will not unlatch.

Accoding to the complaint, numerous consumers have reported that they had to either struggle excessively to unlatch their child from the class car seats, had to cut the harness in order to remove their child from the car seats, had to manipulate their child out of the car seat while the harness was still buckled, or simply stopped using the car seat because it would not unbuckle.

The alleged defect includes the inability of the buckles to de-latch, even when dirty. Reasonable consumers expect that childrens’ car seats will get dirty and that even if some dirt accumulates in the latch, the buckles will open. To the extent that Defendants contend that the buckle malfunction is due to foreign material accumulating in the buckle and consumers’ failures to clean the buckle apparatus, Defendants failed to disclose, adequately or at all, material information regarding the necessary cleaning procedures for the car seats.

Defendants knew or should have known that the class car seats had one or more design and/or manufacturing defects which result in the failure of the harness buckle to operate as intended. The defects impede the ability of, or otherwise prevent, the safe and timely removal of the child from the car seat.

The defects pose an unreasonable safety hazard to consumers and/or their children because in the event of a vehicle accident it may be imperative to remove the child from the seat belt as quickly as possible to avoid further injury or death. According to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, “[c]ar crashes are the number one killer of children 1 to 12 years old in the United States.” Moreover, for other reasons, it may be imperative to remove the child from the car seat to avoid injury or death such as if the car becomes submerged in water, if the car is on fire, or if the child is suffering a medical emergency that necessitates quick removal from the car seat.

Because Defendants will not notify Class Members that the class car seats are defective, Plaintiff and Class Members and/or their children are subjected to dangerous conditions.

As alleged, Defendants knew about and concealed the defects in every class car seat, along with the attendant dangerous safety hazards, from Plaintiff and Class Members, at the time of sale and thereafter. In fact, instead of repairing the defects in the class car seats, Defendants refused to acknowledge their existence.

If Plaintiff and Class Members knew about these defects at the time of sale, Plaintiff and Class Members would not have purchased the class car seats or would have paid less for them.

Volvo named in class action lawsuit over defective Side Impact Protection System

This is a class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of a nationwide class of current and former Volvo vehicle owners and lessees of the Volvo 850 produced from 1997 (the “Class Vehicles “).

As alleged, Volvo’s Side Impact Protection System (SIPS) did not exist in the rear doors, despite the fact the Volvo 850 was marketed and advertised with steel bars on all four doors.

Instead of using a solid steel anti-intrusion door bar, as advertised, to prevent intrusion into the rear passenger compartment, Volvo opted to insert a small, flimsy, lightweight, unsupported piece of corrugated plastic into the rear doors of the Volvo 850.

The complaint alleges that the Volvo 850 was not crash worthy nor was it designed properly or advertised appropriately.

Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. is recalling certain model year 2013 Outlander Sport AWD vehicles

Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. is recalling certain model year 2013 Outlander Sport AWD vehicles manufactured June 11, 2012, through December 11, 2012. These vehicles may have been built without a fuel sending unit harness for the sub-sending unit. This may result in a false fuel tank level reading.

As a result the vehicle operator may believe they have fuel when the tank is actually empty. This could cause the engine to stall while driving, increasing the risk of a crash.

Mitsubishi will notify owners, and dealers will install the proper fuel sending harness, free of charge. The manufacturer has not yet provided a notification schedule.

Premier Nutrition Corporation, makers of Joint Juice named in class action lawsuit for false advertising

Defendant claims Joint Juice provides significant health benefits for the joints of all consumers who drink its products. These claimed health benefits are the only reason a consumer would purchase Joint Juice. Defendant’s advertising claims, however, are false, misleading, and reasonably likely to deceive the public.

As alleged, Defendant markets, sells, and distributes Joint Juice, a line of joint health dietary supplements.’ Through an extensive, integrated, and widespread nationwide marketing campaign, Defendant promises that Joint Juice will support and nourish cartilage, lubricate joints, and improve joint comfort. Defendant asserts that the ingredient glucosamine hydrochloride will provide these significant health benefits.

Throughout its advertising and marketing, Defendant communicated the same substantive message on all of the Products’ packaging and labeling: that the Products will improve the health ofjoints and relieve joint pain. As a result, the joint health benefit message on the packaging of Defendant’s Products will be collectively referred to as Defendant’s “joint health benefit representations.”

Defendant’s advertising and marketing campaign is designed to induce consumers to purchase Joint Juice because of their reliance upon the accuracy of the deceptive health benefits message. As a result of its extensive marketing campaign (in 2009, Defendant spent a reported $3.5 million advertising Joint Juice), and in just the past six years, Defendant has sold over $100 million dollars of the Joint Juice products.

Defendant, however, has sold products that do not perform as advertised. As a result of the misleading messages conveyed by its marketing campaign, Defendant has caused consumers to purchase products that do not perform as advertised.

ConAgra named in class action over alleged false advertising of Parkay margarine spray as 0 fat and 0 calories

Defendant’s Parkay Spray is deceptively labeled, marketed and sold to Plaintiff and other consumers as having “0 fat” and “0 calories.”  In reality, Defendant’s Parkay Spray is neither “Fat Free” nor “Calorie Free.” Parkay Spray contains 832 calories and 93 grams of fat per bottle.

As alleged in the complaint, ConAgra’s representations are false and misleading because:

a. Parkay Spray does not qualify as “0 fat” or “fat-free” as a matter of law;

b. Parkay Spray does not qualify as “0 calories” as a matter of law;

c. Parkay Spray uses artificially small serving sizes to understate the amount of fat and calories in the product; and

d. Parkay Spray does not disclose that certain ingredients supply “trace amounts of fats” as required by law.

Defendant’s claims regarding Parkay Spray are false and misleading because its product labels include artificially small “serving sizes” that fail to account for the manner in which these products are customarily consumed.  The labels do not disclose that Parkay Spray contains ingredients that are fats which, even in small quantities, add certain amounts of fat per serving.

As a result of its deceptive marketing and advertising, Defendant has generated substantial revenues from the sale of Parkay Spray.

Trader Joe’s named in class action lawsuit over sale of Calcium Citrate with Vitamin D vitamin product

According to the complaint Trader Joe’s advertises, promotes, markets and sold a dietary supplement known as Calcium Citrate with Vitamin D (“Calcium with Vitamin D”), widely used by consumers because such supplements delivers a number of health benefits, including decreased bone loss, prevention of osteoporosis, and lower cardiovascular mortality rates.

As alleged in the complaint, Trader Joe’s claims that its Calcium with Vitamin D contains (per three tablet daily recommended dose) 400 International Units (“IU”) of Vitamin D-3. In truth and in fact, based upon sophisticated, independent laboratory analysis, Defendant’s product contained 172.5% of the claimed concentration of Vitamin D-3. Thus, instead of providing 400 IU of vitamin D-3 per daily serving, Defendant’s product contained almost 700 IV of vitamin D3, an amount which is grossly excessive, entirely undisclosed, entirely inconsistent with product labeling, and, as we allege, potentially harmful to the unknowing consumer.

The complaint alleges Trader Joe’s took consumers’ money in exchange for the promise of the reliable quality, testing and labeling standards, and delivered to them, in return, a product, for daily consumption, tainted by an undisclosed overdose of a potentially harmful ingredient.

Nissan is recalling certain model year 2013 Altima, LEAF, Pathfinder, Sentra, and Infiniti JX35 vehicles

Nissan is recalling certain model year 2013 Altima, LEAF, Pathfinder, Sentra, and Infiniti JX35 vehicles

Sensors within the passenger Occupant Detection System (ODS) may have been manufactured out of specification. This may cause the system to malfunction and permanently suppress the passenger airbag.  If the vehicle is involved in a crash necessitating airbag deployment and the passenger airbag is suppressed, there may be an increased risk of personal injury.

Nissan will notify owners, and dealers will inspect the ODS sensors and replace them as necessary, free of charge. The recall is expected to begin in early April 2013.