This is a class action lawsuit against Align Technology, Inc. on behalf of purchasers of Invisalign® removable dental appliances made of a plastic resin (Aligners) advertised and promoted to treat patients with orthodontic or restorative dentistry issues marketed by Defendant as an alternative to traditional metal braces, which claims its -treatable cases- include “serious malocclusionl.”
As alleged, the Invisalign® system does not treat Plaintiff and class members’ malocclusions, which require other dental procedures to correct their dental condition such as crowns. Defendant offers its Invisalign® system of aligners to treat the misalignment of teeth and malocclusions through dentists and orthodontists that work in conjunction with defendant’s trained specialists leading consumers to believe that the Aligners would cure their dentistry issues such as malocclusions. In actuality, the Aligners cannot treat malocclusions.
Defendant has utilized and utilizes misleading marketing practices as a means of promoting the Aligners without the capacity to perform as claimed. Moreover, Defendant has also falsely advertised, misled and deceived consumers like Plaintiff into believing the Invisalign® system can treat their malocclusions to their detriment. These misrepresentations play a substantial part in influencing Plaintiff’s and other consumers’ decisions to purchase the falsely advertised and marketed aligners, decisions made upon reliance on defendant’s misrepresentation prominently displayed in its advertising, including brochures placed in dentists and orthodontists offices, advertisements, and on its website, www.invisalign.com.
Defendant has received warning letters from the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) in connection with the advertising and marketing of its Aligners based on its failure to inform the public of some severe side effects caused from wearing the Aligners.
Onity Inc. is the manufacturer of electronic door locks used primarily in hotels, motels, and other lodging businesses. The primary purpose of these locks is to secure lodging rooms and protect the occupants and their possessions. As alleged in the complaint, Onity Locks are defective and fail to perform as promised, leaving lodging guests, at risk.
The Onity Locks were defective and, as a result, experts in the industry have described the process of hacking them and gaining access to guestrooms containing the Onity Locks as, “stupidly simple.” As has been demonstrated repeatedly, including for public view across the Internet, the Onity Locks can be easily opened with a homemade hacking device, created with readily available, store-bought parts, rendering the locks worthless.
RadioShack agreed to pay up to $5.3 million to settle alleged violations of a federal law barring a credit card’s expiration date from being printed on a sales receipt.
The suit, claimed a violation of the Fairness and Accurate Transaction Act that Congress passed in 2003 and took effect Jan. 1, 2005. The law restricts the information that can be printed on a receipt, barring the display of an expiration date and limiting the credit card number to five digits.
The settlement is limited to those customers making purchases between Aug. 24, 2010, and Nov. 11, 2011, and calls for $10 vouchers good for store or online purchases to be issued to those whose claims are approved. The vouchers will be distributed as bar codes and must be used within six months of being issued. Claim forms must be returned by Aug. 27 to be eligible for the settlement. A maximum of three vouchers can be used for a single purchase, the settlement said. If the settlement vouchers exceed $5.3 million, they will be reduced pro rata, it said. Settlement notices will be sent to about 3.5 million customers via direct mail, while another 1 million get one via email, according to the settlement.
If you purchased a pre-paid calling card where Touch-Tel was the distributor of the pre-paid calling card, anywhere in the United States, between August 27, 2004, and May 20, 2013, you could receive benefits from a class action settlement.
This summary notice informs you about the settlement of Crescencio Galvez, et al. v. Touch-Tel U.S.A., L.P. d/b/a Touch-Tel USA, LLC, United States District Court, Central District of California, Case No. 2:08-CV-05642-RGK (JCx). Crescencio Galvez and Guadalupe Galvez represent a class of pre-paid calling card customers who purchased certain calling cards distributed by Touch-Tel between August 27, 2004, and May 20, 2013, other than for purposes of re-sale. A list of those cards can be reviewed by accessing www.Touch-TelSettlement.com.
If you submit a claim form you can receive a Refund PIN or Calling Card in $2.00 increments that can be used to make telephone calls, at the rate of 10 cents/minute to any telephone number within the United States and Canada, and 25 cents/minute to any telephone number in any of the following countries: Mexico, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Ecuador and El Salvador. There shall be a total cap of $375,000 on the dollar amount of Refund PINs. Individual claims are capped at $20.00 based on 40% of the face value of your Touch-Tel calling card purchases during the Class Period. The Refund PIN or calling card will be good for a period of one year from the date of distribution. You can submit a Proof of Claim Form online at www.Touch-TelSettlement.com
Pepperidge Farm markets, advertises, sells and distributes “Natural” Cheddar Goldfish® Crackers
According to the complaint, Defendant made and continues to make false and misleading claims regarding its representation that the Product is “Natural.” Defendant has mistakenly or misleadingly represented that the Product is “Natural,” when in fact, it is not, because it contains bio-engineered food, more commonly known as Genetically Modified Organisms (“GMOs”) in the form of GMO soy and/or soy derivatives.
As alleged, Defendant’s “Natural” statement prominently displayed on the Product’s packaging and/or labeling is false, misleading, and likely to deceive reasonable consumers, such as Plaintiff and members of the Class, because the Product is not “Natural,” due to the presence of soybean oil in the Product.
GMOs are plants that grow from seeds in which DNA splicing has been used to place genes from another source into a plant. Contrary to Defendant’s express or implied representations, the Product uses plants or plant derivatives grown or created from GMOs. Defendant’s marketing of the Product as “Natural” is false, because GMOs’ genetic makeup has been altered through biotechnology to exhibit characteristics that do not otherwise occur in nature.
The complaint seeks an Order prohibiting Defendant from including genetically modified ingredients in its “Natural” Products or, in the alternative, from representing the Products are “Natural” when they are not, because bio-engineered soy is not “Natural.”
The class action is brought on behalf of a Class of consumers who purchased 5-hour ENERGY shots manufactured and sold by Defendant, Living Essentials
Defendant manufactured and marketed its product under various brands and product names including, but not limited to, 5-hour ENERGY, Extra Strength 5-hour ENERGY, and Decaf 5-hour ENERGY shot (“5-hour Energy” or the “Product”). Defendant represents to consumers, among other representations as alleged herein, that 5-Hour Energy produces a sustained level of “energy” for five hours, that the consumer will have “hours of energy now, no crash later,” “contains B Vitamins for energy and amino acids for focus,” and that you can “drink it in seconds and in minutes you’re feeling alert and productive and that feeling lasts for hours”.
Defendant claims to base its representations upon scientific studies which it claims demonstrates the superior nature of 5-hour Energy branded drinks over simpler and less expensive caffeine only products, such as a caffeine tablet or a cup of coffee.
The complaint alleges that there is no genuine scientific research and there are no scientifically reliable studies in existence that support Defendant’s claims that 5-hour Energy drinks provide any additional benefits over a caffeine tablet or a cup of coffee.
As alleged, Defendant knew or should have known that there is no greater benefit of ingesting 5 -hour Energy than ingesting an equivalent dose of caffeine and has taken no meaningful steps to clear up consumer misconceptions regarding its product.
The class action complaint is brought on behalf of those who purchased the dietary supplement True Athlete Training Formula (“Product”) from Defendant Vitamin Shoppe. While Defendant makes certain claims in the labeling and advertising of the Product as a bodybuilding, fitness training and endurance developing formula, none of the ingredients themselves or as formulated by Defendant will deliver the results Defendant promises.
Vitamin Shoppe, Inc., advertises, manufactures, markets, sells and distributes the Product which is sold in the growing and extremely competitive fitness industry as a “Pre-Workout Muscle Building and Performance Enhancing” product. Although the Vitamin Shoppe boasts about the Product’s efficacy in labeling and advertising the Product, it dramatically under-doses and uses ineffective compounds such that none of the promised benefits is or can be delivered by the Product.
As a result of Defendant’s unfair, deceptive, fraudulent, unfair and misleading practices, Plaintiff and Class Members have been unfairly deceived into purchasing the Product which they would not otherwise have purchased, or would have purchased only at a substantially lower price than that charged by Defendant.
Plaintiff brings this action seeking damages and other relief from Defendant for its violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, for its breaches of express and implied warranties, and for its unjust enrichment at the expense of Plaintiff and the class.
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.