Class Action Lawsuit and Litigation News
Johnson & Johnson has been sued thousands of times over the past few years over its marketing of talcum powder. Many women have claimed the company knew of a link between ovarian cancer and talc use for decades.
Asbestos-related lawsuits are the most recent challenge for the pharmaceutical giant. The latest lawsuit to hit the company was filed by a man, Stephen Lanzo, who alleged that he developed mesothelioma after inhaling dust that was generated through his regular us...
Target has reached a settlement with plaintiffs who sued the retailer, claiming racial and ethnic discrimination in its hiring practices.
The company has agreed to pay $3.74 million and upgrade its hiring practices, although it did not admit to any wrongdoing.
The lawsuit alleged that Target's practice of using criminal background checks served to exclude racial minorities from its workforce. The plaintiffs charged that Target had "imported the racial and ethnic dispariti...
Sort By
The Americans with Disabilities Act has been in effect for 27 years, and is responsible for familiar accessibility features like handicapped-designated parking spots and ramps in public spaces and large businesses.
Like other civil rights legislation, the ADA is enforced by either filing a complaint with the federal government or by filing suit. However, a few unscrupulous attorneys and plaintiffs have abused this to such an extent that the ADA may soon face legislation...
Commercial drones are an ideal product for getting spectacular aerial views, but operators must be careful of where they fly them. That’s a lesson that SkyPan International is learning the hard way after reaching a settlement with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
The aerial photography company has agreed to pay $200,000 for allegedly conducting 65 illegal flights above the cities of Chicago and New York City from 2012 to 2014. In a press announcement, the FAA s...
Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson has asked a state court for a summary judgment against the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), as well as imposition of civil penalties.
The request stems from a lawsuit over the 2013 ballot initiative that attempted to require a special label on food products containing genetically modified organisms (GMO).
GMA, a Washington, DC-based food industry trade group, marshaled industry resources to oppose the measure, saying it wou...
Just over a year ago, a South Dakota woman was awarded $55 million after a jury decided that the Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder she used for years caused her to develop ovarian cancer. It was the second major blow to the company in recent months, as another jury had awarded $72 million to the family of an Alabama woman who had died of cancer after regularly using Johnson & Johnson talcum powder.
Now, yet another lawsuit against the company has found success. On Thursday, ...
Bank of America has agreed to pay $1.9 million to settle a civil lawsuit that alleged that it took too long to tell customers that their phone calls were being recorded over the past several years.
The complaint cited violations of section 632 of the California Penal Code, which states that each party of a confidential conversation must be informed if the call is being recorded. The suit said that Bank of America failed to live up to this rule by not making “clear, consp...
An online lead aggregator has caught the ire of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) for directing consumers towards lenders who offered illegal or unlicensed loan services.
Zero Parallel, LLC has been charged by the agency of allegedly selling consumers’ payday and installment loan applications to collectors who were likely to make void loans that lenders had no legal right to collect. The CFPB’s proposed order against the company and its owner Davit Gasparya...
An Illinois Supreme Court ruling upholding consumers’ right to file lawsuits in the courts despite contracts that purport to require binding arbitration is being seen as a victory for consumers. The ruling is likely to have a substantial impact on similar cases under consideration by federal and state courts in Ohio, New Mexico and a number of other states.
“This decision establishes a new rule in the giving consumers the right to file lawsuits when the arbitr...
Choosing the right paint for your home doesn’t necessarily boil down to what you think looks best, but what is safest for you and your family. That’s something consumers should be reminded of thanks to a recent settlement reached by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
The agency announced a settlement with four paint companies over alleged deceptive claims that their products contained no volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and were safe before and after application for ba...
New mothers are often highly concerned with what goes into their child's body, and buying organic products can be one way to help assuage that concern. But some companies’ baby and toddler-focused products may not be as organic as their labels claim.
Two infant formula makers are being accused of falsely labeling products as “organic.” The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) has filed suit against the Hain Celestial Group (owner of the Earth’s Best formula brand) and The Honest Co.
The companies are accused of labeling certain “organic” products that contain ingredients prohibited under the Organic Food Production Act of 1990 (OPPA).
Violates USDA standards
Eleven substances not deemed organic by federal law were found in The Honest Co.’s Premium Infant Formula. Over half of the 48 ingredients in Hain Celestial’s Earth’s Best Organic Infant Formula violate USDA Organic Standards. Non-organic ingredients were also found in other Earth’s Best products (including Organic Infant Formula, Organic Soy Infant Formula, Organic Sensitivity Infant Formula, and Organic Toddler Formula).
The OCA’s international director, Ronnie Cummins, says it’s an especially fitting time to call out the violation of USDA organic standards, as leaders of the organic industry are meeting this week at the Spring National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) to discuss organic standards.
“No one is more concerned about food labels and ingredients than new mothers responsible for feeding infants whose immune systems and brain development are so underdeveloped and vulnerable,” Cummins said in a statement, adding that mothers rely on truthful labeling.
The consumer advocacy group says the goal of the lawsuit is to force the two companies to either comply with USDA organic standards or stop calling their products “organic.”
Approved methods
What is and isn’t “organic” has been a contentious issue lately. According to the USDA, the labeling term should indicate that the food has been produced through approved methods.
The agency states that cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that “promote ecological balance and conserve biodiversity” should apply to a product before it’s labeled organic.
New mothers are often highly concerned with what goes into their child's body, and buying organic products can be one way to help assuage that concern. But some companies’ baby and toddler-focused products may not be as organic as their labels claim.
Two infant formula makers are being accused of falsely labeling products as “organic.” The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) has filed suit against the Hain Celestial Group (owner of the Earth’s Best formula brand) and The...
A Texas court has dismissed a $1 million lawsuit that a Dallas pet-sitting company filed against a couple who said the pet-sitters had overfed their goldfish.
It all began when fish owners Michelle and Robert Duchouquette returned home to Dallas after a brief vacation and found that the water in their fish bowl was cloudy, suggesting that their fish had been overfed by Prestigious Pets, the pet-sitting company. They posted a review on Yelp, complaining they had been unable to talk directly to the pet-sitter and gave the company a one-star rating.
Prestigious Pets sued, claiming the negative review was libelous and claimed that it breached a nondisparagement clause in its customer agreement.
It is thought to be the first court case in which a court has held a nondisparagement clause in a consumer contract to be unenforceable, said Paul Alan Levy, the Public Citizen attorney who represented the Douchouquettes, along with local counsel.
“Seeking to silence negative criticism, the owners of Prestigious Pets may well have put their whole company on the line,” Levy said. “Not only did the company lose business when customers were disgusted over the non-disparagement lawsuit, it now is responsible to pay attorney fees and sanctions. This case should serve as a warning to other companies.”
Michelle Duchouquette said she was gratified by the ruling.
"It took lots of hours and many smart minds spending too much time talking about Gordy the betta fish," she said. "Thank goodness they did not lose sight of the real issue: the threats posed by non-disparagement clauses to our right to free speech.”
A Texas court has dismissed a $1 million lawsuit that a Dallas pet-sitting company filed against a couple who said the pet-sitters had overfed their goldfish.
It all began when fish owners Michelle and Robert Duchouquette returned home to Dallas after a brief vacation and found that the water in their fish bowl was cloudy, suggesting that their fish had been overfed by Prestigious Pets, the pet-sitting company. They posted a review on Yelp, complaining they had been unab...
It looks like Tesla will be taking on the state of Michigan for the right to sell its cars to consumers there. The company has filed a lawsuit disputing a law that bars it from selling vehicles directly to Michigan consumers. The action comes less than a week after the automaker’s application for a Class A license was denied by state officials.
The law in question was created in 2014. It dictated that no automaker would be able to sell its cars in Michigan unless it did so through franchised dealerships in the state. It has been dubbed by some as the “anti-Tesla” law because it specifically mentions Tesla in one of its amendments about requiring a franchised dealership.
This is a big problem for Tesla since its company model is based off selling cars directly to consumers; it says that efforts to open dealerships in Michigan have been blocked by state officials.
Opposing forces
Tesla claims that the 2014 law is unconstitutional because it effectively gives automakers in the state a monopoly on car sales.
“As a result of this law, Michigan consumers are forced to accept reduced access to the products they want, less competition and higher prices,” said Tesla in a statement. It goes on to say that it will continue to “fight for the rights of Michigan consumers to be able to choose how they buy cars in Michigan.”
Tesla asserts that its efforts to make headway in the state have been rebuked by Michigan lawmakers at every turn. It stated that it had initially hoped to resolve the matter through the state’s legislature, but it was dismayed to learn that its case would not be submitted for review.
“Unfortunately, the local auto dealers and local manufacturers have made clear that they oppose any law that would allow Tesla to operate in Michigan. Given their position, the leadership of the Michigan legislature recently informed Tesla that it will not even hold a hearing to debate the issue,” the company said in a statement.
“As one leading legislator told Tesla: ‘The local auto dealers do not want you here. The local manufacturers do not want you here. So you’re not going to be here.’”
The company is seeking a jury trial and has named Michigan’s Secretary of State, Attorney General, and Governor as defendants, since each allegedly was involved in preventing Tesla from operating its own stores in the state.
It looks like Tesla will be taking on the state of Michigan for the right to sell its cars to consumers there. The company has filed a lawsuit disputing a law that bars it from selling vehicles directly to Michigan consumers. The action comes less than a week after the automaker’s application for a Class A license was denied by state officials.
The law in question was created in 2014. It dictated that no automaker would be able to sell its cars in Michigan unless it did ...
Consumers may remember back in 2014 when allegations surfaced that Best Buy was selling recalled products; charges for knowingly selling 16 recalled items between 2010 and 2015 ended up being leveled against the company by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).
Selling these products stood directly in the face of federal law, which prohibits the sale, offer for sale, or distribution of recalled products. However, it seems that the company will finally settle acc...
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is still standing after a federal appeals court reduced the power of its director and ruled that the way it is structured is unconstitutional.
But the District of Columbia Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals denied a plaintiff's request to shut the agency down.
The ruling came in the appeal of a $109 million fine levied by CFPB against a New Jersey mortgage servicing company. The company appealed, claiming the agency, estab...
JPMorgan Chase has caught the ire of regulators for allegedly hiring and giving internships to candidates based on requests from foreign governments, officials, and clients. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) points out that this type of nepotism is a breach of federal law, and now the company must pay a $264 million settlement.
“Referral Hires did not compete against other candidates based on merit and, in most instances, were less qualified,” SEC officials sa...
No one ever said that legal settlements were a quick process, but after more than three years, 47 states and the District of Columbia will be compensated for Target’s infamous 2013 data breach.
Target will pay a record $18.5 million in penalties for a data breach that compromised millions of customer credit and debit card accounts. California will get the largest part of that settlement at $1.4 million. Alabama, Wisconsin, and Wyoming did not paticipate in the action and...