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.



Porsche recalls certain model year 2012-2013 911 Carrera and Carrera 4 vehicles

Porsche is recalling certain model year 2012-2013 911 Carrera and Carrera 4 vehicles manufactured from March 7, 2012, through November 12, 2012, and equipped with a standard (not sport) exhaust system. The exhaust tail pipe may fracture and separate from the rear muffler.

If the exhaust tail pipe separates from the muffler it may become a hazard for other vehicles on the road, increasing the risk of a crash.

Porsche will notify owners, and dealers will replace the rear mufflers free of charge. The manufacturer has not yet provided a notification schedule.

Nissan recalls Sentra vehicles over faulty fuel tank assemblies

Nissan is recalling certain model year 2013 Sentra vehicles manufactured from September 11, 2012, through October 4, 2012.  Some fuel tank assemblies were not properly sealed during the manufacturing process.  As a result, a small amount of gasoline may leak from the tank when it is full.
A gasoline leak in the presence of an ignition source may lead to a vehicle fire.
Nissan will notify owners, and dealers will replace the fuel tanks as necessary, free of charge.

Oceana Study Reveals Seafood Fraud Nationwide

According to the study, 33% of seafood nationwide is mislabeled. From 2010 to 2012, Oceana conducted one of the largest seafood fraud investigations in the world to date, collecting more than 1,200 seafood samples from 674 retail outlets in 21 states to determine if they were honestly labeled. DNA testing found that one-third (33 percent) of the 1,215 samples analyzed nationwide were mislabeled, according to U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines.

Of the most commonly collected fish types, samples sold as snapper and tuna had the highest mislabeling rates (87 and 59 percent, respectively), with the majority of the samples identified by DNA analysis as something other than what was found on the label. In fact, only seven of the 120 samples of red snapper purchased nationwide were actually red snapper. The other 113 samples were another fish. Halibut, grouper, cod and Chilean seabass were also mislabeled between 19 and 38 percent of the time, while salmon was mislabeled 7 percent of the time.

Forty-four percent of all the retail outlets visited sold mislabeled fish. Restaurants, grocery stores and sushi venues all sold mislabeled fish and chances of being swindled varied greatly depending on where the seafood was purchased. Our study identified strong national trends in seafood mislabeling levels among retail types, with sushi venues ranking the highest (74 percent), followed by restaurants (38 percent) and then grocery stores (18 percent). These same trends among retail outlets were generally observed at the regional level.

Read the full story here:


BMW named in class action over premature cracking of alloy wheels

This is a class action against BMW of North America, LLC on behalf of a class of California consumers who currently own or lease, or previously owned and leased, a 2007 or later year BMW 5 series vehicle (the “Subject Vehicle(s)”) that has or had 17” or larger original equipment manufacturer BMW alloy wheels (the “BMW Alloy Wheels”)

As alleged in the complaint, BMW knew, or should have known, that the BMW Alloy Wheels affixed to low profile or run-flat tires were subject to cracking, requiring the wheels, and sometimes the tires, to be replaced after being used—in some cases, after less than 20,000 miles—and that such cracking is not consistent with the reasonable expectations of consumers regarding alloy wheel life on the Subject Vehicles. Despite this knowledge, BMW placed the BMW Alloy Wheels on the Subject Vehicles and failed to disclose that the BMW Alloy Wheels would have a shorter life span than reasonable consumers would expect.

BMW’s failure to disclose the fact that the BMW Alloy Wheels prematurely crack is especially egregious in light of the safety hazard resulting from driving with a cracked wheel, due to the loss of tire pressure that typically ensues. Moreover, the possibility of a loss in tire pressure while driving the Subject Vehicles would be a material fact to a reasonable consumer.

This action is brought to remedy violations in connection with Defendant’s marketing and distribution of the BMW Alloy Wheels which come affixed to the Subject Vehicles. The BMW Alloy Wheels are subject to cracking under normal driving conditions, creating a safety hazard and necessitating replacement or repair of the wheel and sometimes the tire, at substantial cost to the consumer.

Welch Food’s Inc named in class action for unauthorized health claims on grape juice products

This action arises out of unlawful “heart health” claims made by Welch’s on the label of its 100% Grape Juice. 21 C.F.R. 101, Subpart E specifies the precise health claims that may be made on a food label. Welch’s Heart Label fails to comply with these requirements. In so doing, Welch’s has violated California’s Sherman Law and California consumer protection statutes.

To profit from the public’s increasing focus on heart health, Welch’s has, at various times during the class period, placed a label on it’sI00% Grape Juice with a large heart shaped symbol and a slogan that reads “Helps Support A Healthy Heart.” This heart shaped symbol also appears in reduced size next to the Nutrition Facts on the back of the bottle with the following statement beneath it: “As part of a healthy diet and active lifestyle, Welch’s 100% Grape Juice, made with Concord grapes, helps support a healthy heart.”

The complaint contends that Welch’s Heart Label is a health claim that does not comply with any of the 16 categories of permissible health claims provided for by the FDA and therefore is misbranded.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all California residents who purchased one or more Welch’s 100% Grape Juice products with the Heart Label

Anheuser-Busch Companies named in lawsuit for overstating the amount of alcohol in its products

Anheuser-Busch makes claims about the alcohol content of numerous of its malt beverages on their labels. In most instances, AB’s decision to make such claims is purely voluntary. AB’s claims are false in every instance and are based on its uniform corporate policy of overstating the amount of alcohol in numerous of AB’s products. Using highly advanced process control instrumentation and corporate protocols, AB can and does identify and control, with great accuracy and precision, the exact alcohol content of each malt beverage it sells, but it nevertheless intentionally misrepresents numerous of such product as containing greater amounts of alcohol than they actually contain. By falsely representing the alcohol content of products it sells on their labels.

As alleged, Anheuser-Busch knows the precise alcohol content of each of its products, it could conform its labels for each such product to accurately state that content. Instead, and even though Anheuser-Busch knows the true alcohol content of its products, it intentionally and falsely overstates the alcohol content of numerous of its malt beverages. Anheuser-Busch never intends for these malt beverage to possess the amount of alcohol that is stated on the label. As a result, Anheuser-Busch’s customers are overcharged for watered down beer

The class:  All individuals residing in Texas who purchased in Texas at retail for off-site family, personal or household use and not for re-sale within four years prior to the date of the filling of this action one or more of the following Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC products: “Budweiser”; “Bud Ice”; “Bud Light Platinum”; “Michelob”; “Michelob Ultra”; “Hurricane High Gravity Lager”; “King Cobra”; “Busch Ice”; “Natural Ice”; “Black Crown” and “Bud Light Lime.”

Talbots Classics National Bank named in class action over alleged Truth in Lending Act violation

This action seeks redress for the illegal practices of Talbots Classics National Bank (the “Bank”), owned and operated by The Talbots, Inc. (together, “Defendants”), for providing to customers of its Talbots store credit card accounts (“Talbots card”) disclosures that violated the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”).

As alleged, the Bank failed to furnish accurate disclosures in the manner mandated by ‘l’ILA provisions and by the corresponding federal regulations governing account opening disclosures furnished in connection with new credit card accounts. More specifically, the Bank failed to furnish the full sot of required disclosures regarding the rights and obligations of the consumer and the lender with respect to billing disputes and unsatisfactory merchandise or services billed to the consumer’s account. Additionally, the Bank furnished inaccurate disclosures with respect to the initial year’s terms.

Sarpes Beverages, LLC named in class action over false and misleading claims associated with Dream Water

Sarpes Beverages is a Florida company that manufactures, markets, and sells bottled water known as “Dream Water”. Defendant claims Dream Water is an all-natural revolutionary sleep and relaxation beverage made up of a proprietary combination of three natural relaxation ingredients: GABA, Melatonin and 5-htp. Through its advertising and labeling, Defendant promises that its miraculous water works for anyone who needs to relax, fall asleep or stay asleep and that Dream Water will “transport [users] to a sound and restful sleep.” Dream Water, according to Defendant, has no side effects and provides its amazing sleep benefits without making users feel groggy or drowsy the next day like other over-the counter and prescription sleep aids.

Defendant guarantees that Dream Water will work. Although Defendant used or uses images and language to represent that these claims about its products have been clinically proven and endorsed by medical organizations and professionals, the reality is that Defendant has no such support for its baseless representations; and, in fact, Defendant’s representations are false. Defendant simply is and has been misrepresenting the effectiveness of its products to the general public, in order to reap windfall profits. Dream Water really is just over-priced water. Defendant has conveyed and continues to convey its deceptive claims about Dream Water through a variety of media, including product packaging, the Internet (including misleading testimonials) and point of sale displays.

As alleged, Defendant has succeeded in designing its advertising and marketing campaign in Florida and disseminating its deceptive and false claims nationwide to cause consumers throughout Florida and the rest of the United States to buy Dream Water as a result of this deceptive message. Dream Water is now sold in airports throughout the country, over the Internet, and through national retail giants, including Food4Less®, Safeway®, CVS, Walgreens, K-Mart, Wal-Mart,and Winn-Dixie. . Dream Water is sold in flavors such as “snoozeberry,” “nighttea night,” and “paradise pm.” It comes in 2.5 ounce “sleep shots”. A twelve- pack of “sleep shots” costs $38.99.

4. Plaintiff was aggrieved by Defendant’s deceptive conduct. Plaintiff was exposed to Defendant’s misrepresentations about Dream Water, bought and paid for Dream Water, but received none of the intended benefits. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and other similarly-situated consumers, who purchased Defendant’s Dream Water products in order to halt the dissemination of this false and misleading advertising message, correct the false and misleading perception Defendant has created in the minds of consumers, and to obtain redress for those who have purchased Defendant’s products.

Wells Fargo named in class action lawsuit over abusive practices related to force-place flood insurance

Plaintiffs and the putative class members have mortgages1 secured by residential property, and were charged for lender-placed (also known as “force-placed”) flood insurance.

Although mortgage lenders and servicers generally have the right to force-place flood insurance where the property securing the loan falls in a Special Flood Hazard Area (“SFHA”) and is not insured by the borrower, WFB systematically abused that right and violated the legal rights of Plaintiffs and other Putative Class members by (1) purchasing backdated policies, (2) charging borrowers for expired or partially expired coverage, and (3) arranging for kickbacks or so-called “commissions” for itself and/or its affiliates in connection with force placed flood insurance.

WFI actively participated in this unlawful and unfair scheme by (1) procuring backdated force-placed flood insurance coverage for WFB; and (2) accepting kickbacks or so called “commissions” from the QBE Defendants and other entities for such backdated coverage (a portion of which were passed on to WFB).

The QBE Defendants also actively participated in this unlawful and unfair scheme. QBEC issued backdated force-placed flood insurance coverage for WFB that was wholly or partially expired, and received handsome premium payments for such backdated coverage.

QBEC, in turn, shared a portion of these premiums with its affiliate, QBEF, which won Wells Fargo’s business by offering kickbacks or so-called “commissions” on force-placed flood insurance policies to WFB’s affiliate, WFI. But for these kickbacks, the QBE Defendants would not have won Wells Fargo’s force-placed flood insurance business Defendants engaged in this conduct in bad faith, knowing that their actions were not authorized by borrowers’ mortgage contracts or the National Flood Insurance Act (“NFIA”), and were inconsistent with applicable law and reasonable commercial standards of decency and fair dealing.

The putative class action is brought on behalf of five proposed classes and three proposed subclasses of borrowers,

Fannie Mae Mortgage Class: All persons with residential mortgage loans secured by Fannie Mae form mortgages, who were charged by WFB for force placed flood insurance coverage during the applicable limitations period.

Backdated Fannie Mae Mortgage Sub-Class: All persons in the Fannie Mae Mortgage Class, who were charged by WFB for backdated force-placed flood insurance during the applicable limitations period.

Wells Fargo California Class: All persons with residential mortgage loans or lines of credit secured by property in the State of California, who were charged by WFB for force-placed flood insurance on or after February 19, 2009.

Wells Fargo Backdated California Sub-Class: All persons with residential mortgage loans or lines of credit secured by property in the State of California, who were charged by WFB for backdated force-placed flood insurance on or after February 19, 2009.

QBE California Class: All persons with residential mortgage loans or lines of credit secured by property in the State of California, who were charged for backdated force-placed flood insurance issued by QBEC or its affiliates on or after February 19, 2009.

WFI Unjust Enrichment Class: All persons with residential mortgage loans secured by Fannie Mae form mortgages, who were charged for force-placed flood insurance that was procured by WFI on behalf of WFB during the applicable limitations period.