Rite Aid named in class action lawsuit alleging false labeling of joint health dietary supplements


Rite Aid manufactures and sells a house brand line of joint health dietary supplements products under the “Rite Aid” label, including: Rite Aid Glucosamine/Chondroitin., 2) Rite Aid Natural Glucosamine/Chondroitin; 3) Rite Aid Glucosamine Chondroitin Advanced Complex; 4) Rite Aid Glucosamine Chondroitin, Triple Strength I MSM; 5) Rite Aid Glucosamine Chondroitin + MSM; 6) Rite Aid Glucosamine Chondroitin Advanced Complex with HA; 7) Rite Aid Glucosamine Sulfate.

According to the labels on these products, the purported active ingredients are, among others, glucosamine sulfate, chondroitin sulfate. In its marketing of the Supplements, Rite Aid promises that they “help rebuild cartilage & lubricate joints”.  While Rite Aid’s claims regarding the improved joint function associated with the Supplements are directed at anyone seeking to alleviate joint pain or stiffness, they are particularly directed at people suffering from osteoarthritis. Indeed, the most common symptoms of osteoarthritis include joint pain and stiffness—the very symptoms the Supplements claim to remedy.

According to the complaint, the bulk of the reliable and published scientific studies demonstrate that Rite Aid’s claims are false and misleading.

As a result of Defendant’s deceptive joint health benefit representations, consumers including Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class have purchased products that do not perform as advertised.

Class: All consumers who, within the applicable statute of limitations period, purchased the Supplements within the State of New York.

Coca-Cola named in class action lawsuit for failing to disclose existence of artificial flavoring and chemical preservatives


As alleged in the complaint, every container of Coca-Cola sold in the United States either falsely states that it does not contain artificial flavoring and chemical preservatives, or fails to affirmatively state – – as required by state and federal law – – that it, in fact, contains both artificial flavoring and chemical preservatives.

According to the complaint, Defendants portray Coca-Cola as an all-American product. They also falsely portray Coca-Cola as a healthy and all-natural product. Defendants are required to disclose the presence of artificial flavoring and chemical preservatives in food products. Defendants are also required to clearly state the function of any ingredient that is used as either an artificial flavoring or a chemical preservative. Yet, nowhere on any Coca-Cola product does the label identify the function of phosphoric acid or that the product contains artificial flavoring or chemical preservatives. In fact, many containers of Coca-Cola affirmatively state that they do not contain any artificial flavoring or chemical preservatives.

Class:  All persons in Arkansas who, within the last five years, purchased Coca-Cola.

See the complaint here: Coca Cola 12-5-13

Ford sued in class action over the repurchase or replacement of defective vehicles

Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all persons who purchased or leased a Ford Motor Company vehicle in the State of California and were offered vehicle repurchase or replacement by Ford Motor Company from four years prior to the filing of the instant Complaint until class certification (“Class Members”).

According to the complaint, since 2009, Ford has systematically violated the provisions of California’s Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act that govern the repurchase or replacement of defective vehicles from buyers. Specifically, Ford knew that it has systematically violated California Lemon Law by repurchasing or replacing defective vehicles (1) without reimbursing or crediting the buyer for certain statutory damages including, but not limited to, registration fees for each year that the vehicle is registered, full-coverage insurance for each year the vehicle is insured, and extended service contracts, and (2) while improperly making certain deductions from the vehicles’ statutorily mandated repurchase prices, including for “abnormal wear or collision damage (including broken glass)” or alternatively, requiring consumers to pay for repairs at their own expense before Ford agrees to repurchase or replace defective the vehicles.

Ford’s improper deductions from, and failure to reimburse and credit Plaintiff and the other Class Members for, their full statutory repurchase prices violate the Song-Beverly Act, which only permits a single, narrowly-drawn deduction for mileage offset.  Accordingly, if the buyer agrees to Ford’s repurchase or replacement terms, which Ford itemized in its Refund Worksheet for Mr. Potter and other Class Members, he or she receives less than the statutory buy-back and replacement amount required under the Act.

According to the complaint, the buyer’s agreement to accept any amount lower than the statutory repurchase or replacement price is void under California law. This is because California Civil Code section 1790.1 states that “any waiver by the buyer of consumer good of the provisions” of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act “shall be deemed contrary to public policy and shall be unenforceable and void.”

Vemma Nutrition Company named in class action lawsuit over alleged unlawful business practices

Vemma is in the business of selling consumable liquids within the class of beverages known in the beverage industry as “energy drinks,” including Verve Energy Drink. As alleged, Vemma advertises and sells energy drinks and similar products called “Verve” directly via its own website, including Verve Energy Drink, Bold Energy, Partea, Zero Sugar and Energy Shot.

As part of Vemma’s business practice, once a consumer purchases its Verve Products via Vemma’s online website, Vemma knowingly or negligently, and without prior disclosure, charges consumers for additional Verve Product that they did not purchase or agree to purchase.

The Federal Trade Commission has received numerous complaints about Vemma, which include complaints of unauthorized credit card charges.

This action seeks, among other things, equitable and injunctive relief; restitution of all amounts illegally retained by Defendant; and disgorgement of all ill-gotten profits from Defendant’s wrongdoing alleged herein.

Kia named in class action lawsuit over defective gas tanks

The class action lawsuit names Kia Motors America, Inc. and Kia Motors Corporation and is brought on behalf of a Class of all persons who purchased, leased and/or currently own or lease a Kia vehicle model that (i) has a gas tank that is either not connected to the underside of the vehicle with reinforcing straps or is not protected by a whole-tank shield, or (ii) has a plastic fuel pump service cover that is accessible from the passenger compartment of the car (hereinafter “Defective Vehicles”).

As alleged in the complaint, the gas tank is located immediately underneath the rear passenger seats and forward of the cargo area and is not sufficiently protected.  Locating the tank under the rear passenger seats poses a danger to occupants of the rear seats, and, for this reason, the gas tank must either be shielded or attached to the underside of the vehicle with reinforcing straps. However, the gas tank in the defective vehicles is unshielded, and the gas tank is bolted to the vehicle underbody instead of being strapped. Failure to use straps, as most auto manufacturers do, increases the risk that the gas tank will shift or dislodge and ignite in a major collision.

As further alleged, the service cover for the fuel pump is plastic and is located immediately underneath the rear seat cushion. It is unreasonably dangerous to locate the fuel pump here and use a plastic service cover, particularly given the other gas tank defects referenced immediately above. This location, coupled with the use of a plastic instead of a metal fuel pump service cover, increases the likelihood that, in a major collision, fire will penetrate the rear cabin through the plastic service cover like a “blow torch.”

The complaint claims that the gas tank defects make the defective vehicles unreasonably dangerous. Because of the foregoing gas tank defects, passengers sitting in the rear seats in defective vehicles are sitting atop veritable gas bombs that, in a major collision, have the propensity to explode and immediately engulf rear occupants in flames.

The gas tank defects present a significant and unreasonable safety risk exposing defective vehicle owners and their passengers to a risk of serious injury or death.

Plaintiffs and the Class have been damaged by Kia’s misrepresentations, concealment and non-disclosure of the gas tank defects in the Defective Vehicles, and because they were misled into purchasing or leasing vehicles of a quality different than they were promised, and paid more for the vehicles than they would have had the gas tank defects been disclosed.

Seagate named in class action alleging deceptive marketing of external hard drives with the Thunderbolt I/0 interface

This is a consumer class action for damages and injunctive relief arising from Defendant’s deceptive and unlawful conduct in marketing and selling of external hard drives with the Thunderbolt I/0 interface (the “Thunderbolt drives” or “Products”).

Among the products at issue, is the LaCie “Rugged Thunderbolt Series” 1TB Orange External Hard Drive which was purchased by the Plaintiff

Defendant states on the packaging of its Thunderbolt drives, of the “shocking speed” performance of its Thunderbolt drives indicating particular data transfer rates and speeds which, as alleged, cannot be reached.

Seagate’s Thunderbolt drives sell at a premium price to consumers based on the claimed improved interface speed over other “slower” interfaces such as Universal Serial Bus Hi-Speed (“USB 2”). That claimed interface speed, advertised and touted by Defendant for their Thunderbolt drives, as sold, is impossible to attain. It is indeed impossible for ANY existing hard drive to take full advantage of the claimed Thunderbolt speed.

Defendant continues to market and sell their Thunderbolt drives fraudulently and at a premium to other hard drives capable of the same actual transfer speeds

Goodman Manufacturing Co named in class action lawsuit over sale of defective air conditioners

This is a class action brought on behalf of all persons in Arizona who purchased air conditioners, air handlers and heat pumps manufactured by Goodman Manufacturing Co., L.P. under the trade names Goodman® and Amana (hereinafter “Goodman Products”) between November 20, 2009 through November 20, 2013, who incurred damages as a result of having to repair their Goodman Products due to leakage of refrigerant.

Plaintiff purchased Goodman Products and experienced leakage of refrigerant caused by defective evaporator coils. Plaintiff incurred out of pocket expenses to purchase supplemental maintenance coverage for his Goodman Products to have technicians with expertise in HVAC products diagnose, repair and/or replace the defective parts, and replace the refrigerant when required.

As alleged, the refrigerant leakage is due to a defect in the design and manufacturing of the Goodman Products that existed from the date of manufacture.  Specifically, the Goodman Products contained defective evaporator coils that failed prematurely under normal use, causing refrigerant within the system to leak out.

As further alleged Defendants used copper evaporator coils in the Goodman Products that were too thin. This design and/or manufacture defect caused premature corrosion and holes or cracks in the evaporator coils, resulting in leakage of the refrigerant in the system. The defectively designed and/or manufactured evaporator coils could not withstand the higher pressure from the more environmentally friendly refrigerant that was required to be used by law, further exacerbating the leakage problem.

Complaint:Goodman 11-21-13

ConAgra named in class action lawsuit over labeling of Fleischmann’s Original 60% Whipped Vegetable Oil Spread and Orville Redenbacher’s Buttery Flavor Popcorn Oil

The class action lawsuit alleges that ConAgra, the maker of  Fleischmann’s Original 60% Whipped Vegetable Oil Spread and Orville Redenbacher’s Buttery Flavor Popcorn Oil, violated the law by misbranding its products as an “Excellent source of omega 3 ALA” and “0g Trans Fat.”

As alleged in the complaint, Defendant’s use of the “Excellent source of omega 3 ALA” and “0 g Trans Fat” label statements is unlawful because its products do not contain the required disclosure statement referring consumers to the nutrition panel for additional information about the excessively high levels of fat. This disclosure statement is required pursuant to 21 C.F.R. 101.13(h) and California law. Defendant’s Fleischmann’s Original 60% Whipped Vegetable Oil Spread and Orville Redenbacher’s Buttery Flavor Oil and the other Class Products contain more than 13g of fat per the applicable regulatory measuring amount of 50g of product, and therefore the disclosure statement required by 21 C.F.R. 101.13(h) is required when those products bear a nutrition content statement of any kind.

Plaintiffs allege that they reviewed the labels on the Purchased Products, reasonably  relied in substantial part on the labels, and were thereby deceived, in deciding to purchase these products. Moreover, the very fact that Defendants sold such misbranded products and did not disclose this fact to consumers is a deceptive act in and of itself. Plaintiffs would not have purchased products that are illegal to own or possess. Had Defendants informed Plaintiffs of this fact there would have been no purchases.

Costco named in class action lawsuit over sale of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (“HVAC”) products

Costco Wholesale Corporation markets and arranges installation of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (“HVAC”) products at residential real property of its members. Company markets its HVAC services by, among other strategies, promising that it will (i) deliver the “ultimate in energy-efficient performance,” (ii) get the job done “right the first time,” and (iii) secure receipt of available rebates from the respective utility for installation of HVAC systems that satisfy industry-wide energy efficiency standards.

Plaintiff brings this action to challenge the Company’s deliberate fraudulent, tortious, misleading, and unfair business practices in its marketing and sales by which it reaps millions of dollars in ill-gotten profits from thousands of members who purchase purportedly energy efficient HVAC systems.

As alleged, Plaintiff challenges Company’s knowingly false statements that the HVAC systems it installs will entitle the member to the available rebates offered by the respective utility for energy efficient installations. Company’s knowingly false statements are a key component of the Company’s marketing strategy and contribute substantially to Company’s gross revenues and net income at the expense of members who suffer the damages of Company’s knowingly false statements.

Plaintiff and the Class have suffered actual and monetary injury as a result of Company’s wrongful practices and Company has been unjustly enriched by these practices.

Class:  All purchasers of HVAC systems from Defendants during the six years prior to this Complaint’s filing who failed to receive utility rebates due to Defendants’ failure to provide energy efficient systems as contracted.

Chrysler sued over failure to timely repair or replace Totally Integrated Power Module in certain vehicles



The lawsuit is brought on behalf of owners of the 2008 model year Chrysler 300, and 2011- 2012 model year Jeep Grand Cherokees, Dodge Durangos and Dodge Grand Caravans.

These vehicles are factory equipped with a Totally Integrated Power Module (TIPM) which is located in the vehicle engine compartment. The TIPM consists of a computer, relays, and fuses, and controls and distributes power to all of the vehicles’ electrical systems. These electrical systems include the vehicles’ safety systems, security system, ignition system, electrical powertrain as well as the vehicles’ comfort and convenience systems which include such components as the air bags, fuel pump, windshield wipers, headlights, turn signals, and power windows and doors.

The TIPM installed in Class Vehicles fails to reliably control and distribute power to various vehicle electrical systems and component parts. Typically, the defect manifests as an inability to reliably start the vehicle and progressively escalates to the vehicle failing to start all together and, in some instances, the vehicle stalling during operation. Vehicle owners also have problems with the fuel pump not shutting off and random and uncontrollable activity of the windshield wipers, alarm system, door locks, and airbags.

The problem is so widespread that the part is on national backorder, taking weeks and sometimes months for a replacement part to become available. Chrysler however, does not acknowledge the problem, leaving consumers, dealers and auto technicians to sort it out themselves. Consequently, consumers are stuck with inoperable vehicles for weeks and months on end, forced to pay for unnecessary repairs and car rental costs, and have to pay over $1,000 for the TIPM replacement not knowing whether the replacement part suffers from the same defect.

Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of consumers who purchased or leased Chrysler vehicles equipped with the defective TIPM, or, in the alternative, on behalf of statewide classes of consumers who purchased or leased their Chrysler vehicles in California, Maryland, and Florida