Consumer Product Lawsuits and Safety

There's not a week that goes by that a major brand or manufacturer settles a class action lawsuit. Many of those claim that consumers were done wrong in one way or another.

As these lawsuits go, the settlements can run into multi-millions of dollars, a portion of which the wronged parties might receive. Here's ConsumerAffairs' latest round-up of what's recently become available.

Purchased baby formula recently?

This year hasn’t been so good for Abbott Laboratories. In June, the company found itself being investigated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) after an infant who was given formula made by Abbott Laboratories, died. 

Then, the company’s production of baby formula caught grief from the FDA for an infant formula shortage, which then led to allegations by a whistleblower who claimed problems at one of Abbott’s baby formula plants were known a year before shutdown.

And, while all of that was going on, the company was fighting a class action lawsuit that alleged that the label on certain infant formula products manufactured by Abbott led consumers to believe that those products were capable of making a specified number of liquid 4-ounce bottles of formula, when in fact it couldn’t.

To avoid the rigors of fighting the lawsuit and to get back to business, Abbott Laboratories has settled this case. All totaled, there’s $19.5 million available to consumers who live in the United States and purchased certain Abbott Laboratories formula products between June 24, 2016, and September 22, 2022.

Full details of the settlement including how to file a claim are available here. Claim Forms must be submitted online or postmarked by January 31, 2023.

Do you drink margaritas?

If you purchased one of Anheuser-Busch’s (AB) “Ritas” drinks expecting that there was some type of alcohol content like tequila or wine, listen up. 

AB was on the wrong end of a class action lawsuit claiming false advertising laws for representations that those Ritas brand products contained wine or distilled spirits when they didn’t. Rather than fight the lawsuit in court, AB denies all allegations and has settled this lawsuit to avoid further litigation. 

If you purchased any of these products between January 1, 2018, and July 19, 2022, you may be a “Settlement Class Member.” Depending on whether claimants have proof of purchase or not, they can receive up to $21.25 per household. Claims can be filed here.

Suboxone

Consumers who were prescribed the opioid withdrawal medication Suboxone could take part in what’s left of a $59 million Federal Trade Commission (FTC) settlement as a result of false advertising and antitrust violations. According to the FTC and TopClassActions, the manufacturers hatched a plot to maximize Suboxone profits at the expense of consumers. 

How so? It seems that the companies were a little too aggressive in trying to convince more patients to take their branded medication, so they allegedly deceived both patients and doctors with claims that the sublingual film version of Suboxone was safer than its tablet version kin.

Much of the original distribution is gone, but there’s still $500,000 that the FTC wants to distribute. If you were prescribed Suboxone oral film between March 1, 2013, and Feb. 28, 2019 and haven’t filed for part of the original settlement, you can apparently apply for this one. The necessary forms are here, but time is of the essence – you must submit your claim by November 26, 2022.

Snap Finance

If anyone needs proof that a company can hound consumers with phone calls and violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), just ask Snap Finance, a Utah-based financial services company. Snap was accused of violating the TCPA when it placed at least 60 calls in a three-month period. 

The company’s bread and butter it seems are consumers who are credit challenged and looking for a quick financing deal to help them make a purchase. “Good credit? Poor credit? No credit? Snap Finance has got you covered with lease-to-own financing made simple,” the company claims on its website.

The settlement class includes anyone living in the United States “(1) to whom Snap Finance LLC placed, or caused to be placed, a call, (2) directed to a number assigned to a cellular telephone service, but not assigned to a current or former Snap Finance LLC accountholder, (3) in connection with which Snap Finance LLC used an artificial or prerecorded voice, between Sept. 1, 2019, and June 14, 2022.

Anyone who feels they were besieged by calls from Snap could be considered a class member and receive an estimated payment of $300 to $1,000. TopClassActions reports that the actual amount will depend on the number of claims the settlement administrator receives. To file a claim, go here.

The deadline to file a claim is Dec 12, 2022.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which has become more active in recent months when it comes to cracking down on companies that deny consumers’ right to repair their products, has reached a settlement with Weber-Stephen Products, the maker of popular Weber barbecue grills.

The settlement was reached in near-record time. The agency filed its lawsuit on Wednesday, and the settlement was reached hours later.

In its suit, the FTC charged that Weber’s limited warranty illegally restricted customers’ right to repair their purchased products by including terms that voided the warranty if customers used or installed third-party parts on their grill products. 

In settling the case, Weber said it would remove those disputed terms, recognize the right to repair, and inform customers about their ability to use third-party parts.

“This is the FTC’s third right-to-repair lawsuit in as many weeks,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Companies that use their warranties to illegally restrict consumers’ right to repair should fix them now.”

Last month the FTC sued Harley-Davidson and Westinghouse over the same issue. The FTC’s complaints charged that the companies’ warranties included terms that voided the agreements if customers used independent dealers for parts or repairs. 

The FTC ordered Harley-Davidson and Westinghouse to revise their warranties by removing illegal terms and ensuring that dealers compete fairly with independent third parties.

FTC takes cue from White House

The White House directed the FTC to strictly enforce right to repair rules last year. Officials said consumers who have purchased a product have the right to repair it themselves or use a third-party vendor if they choose to.

“It’s great news for everyone concerned with repair monopolies,” U.S. PIRG Right to Repair Senior Campaign Director Nathan Proctor told ConsumerAffairs at the time. 

In its latest action, the FTC stressed that product warranties should be designed to protect consumers, not the manufacturer. It faulted Weber’s warranty by saying it “improperly implied that as a condition of maintaining warranty coverage, consumers had to use the company’s parts.”

The FTC said that policy increases consumer costs by forcing them to use more expensive repair services. The agency said it also puts independent repair firms at a competitive disadvantage.

Former Tesla employees have filed a lawsuit against the automaker over claims that the company's decision to execute a "mass layoff" disregarded a federal law that requires companies to provide sufficient, advance written notice to affected employees.

John Lynch and Daxton Hartsfield are the lead plaintiffs in the suit, but they both filed individually and “on behalf of all others similarly situated.” They said they were terminated from Tesla's Gigafactory plant in Sparks, Nevada, earlier this month. According to the lawsuit, Tesla terminated more than 500 employees alone at that Gigafactory plant in Sparks.

Where Tesla crossed the line

Lynch and Hartsfield claim that if Tesla had abided by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN), they should have had at least 60 days advance notice. 

Instead, the suits claim that Tesla "simply notified the employees that their terminations would be effective immediately." They also claim that the company "failed to provide a statement of the basis for reducing the notification period to zero days advance notice.”

WARN isn’t likely something someone thinks about when they lose their job, but it's designed to give workers and their families sufficient time to adjust to the possible loss of employment, to seek and obtain other jobs, and, if necessary, to enter skill training or retraining that will allow these workers to compete successfully in the job market.

The law requires employers who have 100 or more employees (not counting those who have worked less than six months in the last 12 months and those who work less than 20 hours a week) to provide at least two months of advance written notice of a plant closing and mass layoff that impacts 50 or more employees at a single site. 

There’s a slight silver lining in WARN for employers, however, and it's something that Tesla might try to use to sway the court. The law allows for exceptions to be made when layoffs occur due to unforeseeable business circumstances or the company “faltering.” 

ConsumerAffairs contacted Tesla, but the company did not immediately respond to our request for comment.

Uber’s policies that cover passengers with disabilities has landed the company in hot water with federal officials. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a lawsuit against the rideshare company for charging disabled passengers “wait time” fees because they need more than the two minutes that Uber uses as a default to get into a vehicle. 

The lawsuit claims that the policy dates back to April 2016, when the company began charging riders wait times in a number of cities. The DOJ says the extra fee violates Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires companies to make reasonable modifications in policies and procedures that might deny equal access to individuals with disabilities. 

The department’s lawsuit alleges that Uber starts charging a wait time fee at the two-minute mark even when it’s plain and clear that a passenger’s need for extra time is disability-based.

“Passengers with disabilities may need additional time to enter a car for various reasons. A passenger may, for example, use a wheelchair or walker that needs to be broken down and stored in the car,” the DOJ stated. “Or a passenger who is blind may need additional time to safely walk from the pickup location to the car itself.”

While Uber has yet to comment on the wait time fee allegation directly, it may try to fight back against the DOJ’s accusations. On its website, the company claims that its technology and the transportation provided by drivers “has transformed mobility for many people with disabilities, and we’re committed to continuing to develop technologies that support everyone’s ability to easily move around their communities.”

DOJ demands that Uber change its practices

The DOJ is asking the court to order Uber to stop putting individuals with disabilities at a disadvantage by modifying its wait time fee policy to abide by the ADA. It’s also asking that Uber be required to educate both its staff and its drivers on the ADA, pay money damages to people subjected to the illegal wait time fees, and pay a civil penalty.

The agency left the door open for the suit to apply to “other companies that provide transportation services, but fail to ensure equal access for all people, including those with disabilities.” According to NPR, both Lyft and Uber have been part of similar lawsuits in New York City, Chicago, and other cities. The companies previously claimed that they are exempt from the ADA because they are technology companies and not transportation companies.

The DOJ is asking consumers who believe they have been discriminated against by Uber because of a disability to contact it by phone at 833-591-0425. Consumers can also send an email to Uber.Fee@usdoj.gov to provide information. 

It looks like the U.S.’ largest ongoing lawsuit could be finally drawing to a close, as 14 states have announced an agreement in the fight against opioids. The settlement collectively resolves nearly 4,000 lawsuits against Oxycontin maker Purdue Pharma and Johnson & Johnson. It also strikes a deal with medication distributors Cardinal Health, McKesson, and AmerisourceBergen Drug, as well as pharmacy chains like CVS.

The settlement is composed of two agreements. One is among the states, political subdivisions, and the three major pharmaceutical distributors (AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health, and McKesson). The other is among the states, political subdivisions, and Johnson & Johnson.

Under the agreement, Cardinal, McKesson, and Amerisource will pay out $21 million over the next 18 years. Johnson & Johnson will pay up to $5 million over a nine-year period.

And Purdue Pharma? In addition to filing for bankruptcy, the company has already agreed to cut a $4.5 billion deal with 15 states and plead guilty to three felony charges under a settlement agreement with the U.S. Justice Department.

North Carolina leads the way in settlement funds

The entire payout is contingent on 48 states agreeing to the deal. CourthouseNews reports that at least 44 states and 95% of cities must sign on to the agreement to get some of the money. So far, 15 states are on board, including New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Massachusetts, California, Delaware, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, and Tennessee.

Of those, North Carolina will get the lion’s share of the settlement money -- $750 million. That money has already been earmarked to go toward mitigating opioid misuse in the state.

“The opioid epidemic has torn families apart and killed thousands of North Carolinians,” North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein said in a press release. “Families across our state have shared with me their heart-wrenching stories about their loved ones who are struggling with the horrible disease of addiction or who overdosed and died. It has been my genuine honor on their behalf to lead these negotiations to hold accountable the companies that helped to create and fuel this crisis.”

Earlier this week, New York regulators reached a settlement with Amerisource, Cardinal, and McKesson for $1.1 billion. That money will be added to the $230 million it gained under a settlement agreement with Johnson & Johnson last month.

“The numerous companies that manufactured and distributed opioids across the nation did so without regard to life or even the national crisis they were helping to fuel,” said James in a press release. “Johnson & Johnson, McKesson, Cardinal Health, and Amerisource Bergen not only helped light the match, but continued to fuel the fire of opioid addiction for more than two decades.”

And the pharmacies? While several pharmacies haven’t admitted to any wrongdoing, a report from Reuters confirms that Walgreens, CVS, RiteAid, and Walmart have already agreed to pay a combined $26 million to settle claims with two New York counties. 

As for the others, CourthouseNews says the settlement terms would require those companies to hire an independent clearinghouse to monitor exactly where the drugs are going and how often. If the companies detect that pharmacies are showing signs of drug rerouting, they will have to stop shipping the medications and report the suspected offenders to state regulators. 

Saying it was the company’s “last resort,” Norwegian Cruise Lines (NCLH) has filed a lawsuit against Florida after the state banned vaccine passports. The company said it can’t promote its cruises as safe if it can’t make sure its crew and passengers are vaccinated against COVID-19 in “a way that [NCLH] has determined will be best for all concerned.”

Florida's law puts cruise lines in a no-win position, threatening to fine them $5,000 each time they ask a passenger for proof of vaccination. Gov. Ron DeSantis' press secretary Christina Pushaw told ConsumerAffairs that NCLH made a “disappointing and unlawful choice to join the CDC in discriminating against children and other individuals who cannot be vaccinated or who have opted not to be vaccinated for reasons of health, religion, or conscience"

"At present, approximately 60% of eligible Floridians have been vaccinated against COVID-19, which means Norwegian is purposefully excluding 40% of Florida’s residents from the people it is willing to serve.”

Enough is enough

In what has all the signs of a showdown, Norwegian feels that it and other companies in the travel industry have suffered long enough at the hands of the pandemic. 

“Since March 2020, concerns about COVID-19 have led to a debilitating, total shutdown for the cruise industry generally and for NCLH specifically,” the company said in the lawsuit. “That shutdown has inflicted incalculable, irrecoverable losses not only upon NCLH but upon all those whose interests ride with it—including NCLH’s many crew and passengers as well as a surrounding ecosystem (contractors, vendors, manufacturers, wholesalers, hotels, restaurants, airlines, travel agents, etc.”

If push comes to shove, Norwegian just may pull up every anchor it has in Florida and move somewhere else if it’s not allowed to mandate vaccines.

"At the end of the day, cruise ships have motors, propellers and rudders, and God forbid we can't operate in the state of Florida for whatever reason, then there are other states that we do operate from, and we can operate from the Caribbean for a ship that otherwise would have gone to Florida," CEO Frank Del Rio said during an earnings call in May.

Freedom of choice?

On the other side of the stand-off, Pushaw said that Florida has already fought and won its case so that Norwegian and every other cruise line can invite and serve all Americans on its ships. “But apparently Norwegian prefers the shackles of the CDC to the freedom offered by Florida,” she said.

One ConsumerAffairs reviewer is already standing with Florida on this issue. “Shame on NCL for requiring a covid shot that is not scientifically proven and the FDA didn't even approve it,” wrote Ellen from New York. “Nothing but bullying. We are free Americans and should have the right to choose the shot.”

The 9th U.S.Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that social media company Snap can face a lawsuit by parents who claim the popular app contributed to the deaths of their teenage sons.

The justices were unanimous in their ruling, finding that Snap was not shielded from litigation by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). That provision has generally protected media companies from litigation over content posted on their sites by third parties.

"We appreciate the careful attention that the 9th Circuit paid to this case, and the well-written, unanimous opinion reflects such thoughtful work by the panel," attorney Naveen Ramachandrappa, representing the plaintiffs, said in an email to Reuters.

The parents of Jason Davis, Hunter Morby, and Landen Brown brought the case after their sons died in a 2017 fatal car accident in Wisconsin. Attorneys for the plaintiffs argue that Snap bears some responsibility because the teenagers were using a feature called Speed Filter.

Speed Filter

According to the complaint, the feature lets users share images that are superimposed with images of the speedometer showing how fast the vehicle is traveling. The car carrying the three boys was reportedly going in excess of 100 miles an hour when it left the road and hit a tree.

The parents filed the lawsuit in 2019, claiming that Snap was negligent in designing a feature that encouraged reckless and dangerous behavior. In the first hearing, Snap was absolved of blame.

But in making its decision, the 9th Circuit reversed that lower court ruling. U.S. District Judge Michael Fitzgerald originally granted Snap's motion to dismiss the case citing the protections under the CDA. The appeals court, however, said the suit was not attempting to portray Snap as a publisher but rather as a “products manufacturer.”

The appellate court has sent the case back to district court and ordered Snap to face the plaintiffs’ lawsuit.

Baby food manufacturer Beech-Nut Nutrition Company has been slapped with a lawsuit by Washington D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine over claims that it misled customers about the health and safety of its products.

In the lawsuit, Racine alleges that Beech-Nut’s slogan “real food for babies” is anything but. “It reassures parents of the safety of its products through the use of words and phrases in its marketing and advertising such as ‘natural,’ ‘naturals,’ ‘100% natural,’ ‘organics,’ ‘just sweet potatoes’ (as an example), ‘non-GMO project verified,’ and ‘nothing artificial added.’” 

However, the suit contends that Beech-Nut foods contain high levels of toxic heavy metals, contradicting Beech-Nut’s vow that it “conduct[s] over 20 rigorous tests on our purees, testing for up to 255 pesticides and heavy metals (like lead, cadmium, arsenic and other nasty stuff).” 

Racine went on to accuse Beech-Nut of speaking out of both sides of its mouth when it signaled to consumers that it is “aware of no higher standards in the industry than the ones we employ,” and that “Just like you would, we send the produce back if it’s not good enough.”

“Parents across the District and the country trusted Beech-Nut when it advertised its baby food products as organic and safe. But the reality is much different, as parents unknowingly fed their babies food containing high levels of toxic metals which can lead to lifelong health complications,” Racine stated. 

“No company should profit by illegally deceiving parents about products that actually jeopardize the health and safety of their children. We are seeking to put a stop to it and put other baby food companies on notice that they must provide truthful and complete information about their products. Additionally, federal regulators and Congress need to take action to help ensure baby food is safe.”

Baby food lawsuits and congressional concerns are rolling in

Adding to Beech-Nut’s woes is its inclusion in a class action lawsuit filed in February that claimed the company (and others) misrepresented the heavy metals in their baby food. 

In fact, baby foods in general have had a rough year so far. AboutLawsuits reports that at least 38 proposed baby food class action lawsuits have been filed throughout the federal court system since February. All of the lawsuits involved allegations that popular baby food products contained high levels of arsenic, lead, and mercury.

The Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy in the U.S. House of Representatives also released a report in February called “Baby Foods Are Tainted with Dangerous Levels of Arsenic, Lead, Cadmium, and Mercury.” In that report, the Committee requested internal documents and test results from seven of the U.S.’ largest manufacturers of baby food, including:

• Nurture, Inc., which sells Happy Family Organics, including baby food products under the brand name HappyBABY

• Beech-Nut Nutrition Company 

• Hain Celestial Group, Inc., which sells baby food products under the brand name Earth’s Best Organic

• Gerber

• Campbell Soup Company, which sells baby food products under the brand name Plum Organics

• Walmart Inc., which sells baby food products through its private brand Parent’s Choice

• Sprout Foods, Inc. 

Plaintiffs in 43 lawsuits over toxic metal contamination in baby foods filed a motion in March asking for the cases to be consolidated in New York federal court.

Consumers weigh in

When ConsumerAffairs took a look at past consumer sentiment regarding Beech-Nut baby food products, the company mustered slightly more than a one-star rating, coupled with a significant number of negative comments by reviewers.

One reviewer -- Heidi of Buckley, West Virginia -- said her “mommy intuition” kicked in when she noticed that no “pop” occurred when she opened a jar of Beech-Nut pineapple pear avocado. “To check the taste I took the lid and licked the remaining product from it. While the flavor itself was suspicious, I was immediately aware that I had something crunchy in my mouth. I spit into my hand and found a small but very obvious shard of glass.”

M. of Albuquerque, New Mexico, claimed that she found yellow fat floating on top of a new jar of Beech-Nut chicken. “Consistency also was lumpy, like fine fibrous oatmeal. Can see coarse chicken fibers in it, that shouldn't be there in a first food,” they said.

“M” said they called Beech-Nut’s consumer relations but that a representative “refused to apologize or offer to make it right.”

--- 

Update

The Beech-Nut Nutrition Company has released the following statement to the media regarding its pending litigation:

"We want to assure parents and caregivers that Beech-Nut products are, and have always been, safe and nutritious. That said, we do not comment on specific, pending litigation. Beech-Nut Nutrition looks forward to continuing to work with the FDA, in partnership with the Baby Food Council, on science-based standards that food suppliers can implement across our industry. Beech-Nut is committed to continually refining its internal standards and testing processes as technology and knowledge develops. Beech-Nut has been, and will continue to be, a leader in providing high-quality baby food products.”

Wages became a hot topic this week. In addition to the U.S. House passing the Paycheck Fairness Act, the parent company of Olive Garden and LongHorn Steakhouse found itself as the defendant in a wage-based lawsuit.

Nonprofit organization One Fair Wage (OFW) filed a lawsuit against Darden Restaurants over claims that the company pays subminimum wages. The suit contends that this forces employees to depend on tips to help bring wages up to federal minimum wage levels.

This isn’t the first time Darden has come face-to-face with a lawsuit over wages. It was hit with another in 2012 that accused it of failing to pay federally mandated minimum wages and forcing its waiters and waitresses to work “off-the-clock” before or after their shifts.

Racial inequity and sexual harassment

One Fair Wage claimed two grievances in its lawsuit. First, it said Darden’s tipping policy resulted in racial inequity because tipped employees of color are paid less than tipped white employees; secondly, it says the company "maintains a national, corporate-level policy or practice that local managers must pay the lowest possible cash wage to all tipped employees." It says this forces tipped workers to take a "subminimum wage” that results in “increased sexual harassment of workers." 

The claim of sexual harassment stems from over 20 narratives that OFW collected from workers. Some of the scenarios included cooks making suggestive comments and new female hires being “fought over” by male trainers who later made sexual advances to them off-site.

In a survey presented by OFW, it claims that the federal subminimum wage remains “trapped at only $2.13 an hour for tipped workers” -- a provision that 43 states allow. The organization blames the National Restaurant Association for perpetuating that low wage with “decades of continued lobbying.”

Darden responds

When ConsumerAffairs reached out to Darden to hear its side of the lawsuit, the company said the suit “makes clear that their objections are with federal and state wage laws – not with our practices.”  

“We have zero tolerance for any form of harassment or discrimination in our restaurants, and we have strong policies in place to ensure our team members are treated with respect and feel safe and valued at work,” said Rich Jeffers, Darden’s Senior Director of Communications.

As to OFW’s claim of sub-par wages, Jeffers said Darden’s tipped team members earn more than $20 per hour on average. He added that the company plans to make that wage even higher in the future.

“We also recently announced that every hourly restaurant team member, regardless of role, now earns at least $10 per hour, including tip income, and we committed to raising the amount to $11 per hour in January 2022 and $12 per hour in January 2023,” Jeffers said.

The U.S. Supreme Court has decided in favor of Facebook in a lawsuit over unwanted text notifications the social platform sent. The ruling refutes a claim by the plaintiff, Noah Duguid, that the messages violated the federal ban on robocalls under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA).

Duguid tried to convince the Court that what Facebook was doing was similar to robocalls. He stated that Facebook essentially had the “capacity to dial numbers without human intervention.” Furthering his argument, he said that accepting Facebook’s interpretation would “unleash” a “torrent of robocalls.” However, SCOTUS judges weren’t buying what Duguid was pitching.

“To begin with, Duguid greatly overstates the effects of accepting Facebook’s interpretation. The statute separately prohibits calls using ‘an artificial or prerecorded voice’ to various types of phone lines, including home phones and cell phones, unless an exception applies,” the Court stated in its opinion.

The Court said its decision does not affect that prohibition and that Duguid’s quarrel is with Congress because legislators didn’t define an autodialer as “malleably” as he would have liked. 

Facebook is happy, but lawmakers aren’t

Facebook was happy about the ruling and what it means for its ability to continue sending notifications to users going forward. 

“As the Court recognized, the law’s provisions were never intended to prohibit companies from sending targeted security notifications, and the court’s decision will allow companies to continue working to keep the accounts of their users safe,” Facebook spokesperson Andy Stone said in an emailed statement.

However, lawmakers were less than pleased by the decision. Senator Edward J. Markey (D-MASS) and Congresswoman Anna G. Eshoo (D-CA) called out the Supreme Court for misinterpreting the TCPA. 

They -- and 19 other lawmakers -- sensed that the Court might lean this way months ago and tried to convince officials to be as consumer-sensitive as possible. When their fears came true on Thursday, Markey and Eshoo castigated the Court for abandoning consumers and making it possible for a limitless number of new robocalls to enter people’s lives.

“Today, the Supreme Court tossed aside years of precedent, clear legislative history, and essential consumer protection to issue a ruling that is disastrous for everyone who has a mobile phone in the United States,” said the lawmakers in a joint statement. 

“It was clear when the TCPA was introduced that Congress wanted to ban dialing from a database. By narrowing the scope of the TCPA, the Court is allowing companies the ability to assault the public with a non-stop wave of unwanted calls and texts, around the clock.”

Legislation may be coming

Markey and Eshoo are not giving up on this issue. They say they’ll “act to make right what the Supreme Court got wrong” by introducing legislation to “amend the TCPA, fix the Court’s error, and protect consumers.”

“If the Justices find their private mobile phones ringing non-stop from now until our legislation becomes law, they’ll only have themselves to blame,” Markey and Eshoo added.

A Southwest Airlines customer has been given the green light to continue his lawsuit against the carrier. Adrian Bombin leads a class action lawsuit asking for a refund instead of the airline credit that Southwest offered when his flight was cancelled due to the pandemic.

Bombin filed his lawsuit on February 27, 2020 – 12 days before the World Health Organization declared a global pandemic. Bombin had scheduled a flight from Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport (BWI) to Havana (Cuba) Airport (HAV) using Southwest’s mobile app. When he checked in on his flight on March 23 -- post-WHO’s declaration -- he was surprised to find that his “travel itinerary had been interrupted” due to cancellations caused by the spread of COVID-19.

In the lawsuit, Bombin says the Southwest customer service representative he spoke to did not offer “any comparable accommodations on another flight.” Bombin said that when he asked for a refund, he was denied and “only offered a credit for use on a future flight.”

Southwest asks for a dismissal of the suit

Southwest asked the U.S. District Court to dismiss the lawsuit, but a judge denied the airline’s petition and allowed it to move forward. Bombin appears to have the Department of Transportation (DOT) in his corner. The agency’s rule in situations like this is that “a passenger is entitled to a refund if the airline cancelled a flight, regardless of the reason, and the passenger chooses not to travel.”

The airline’s counterattack is based on its “Conditions of Carriage,” which the airline claims “does not provide for a right of a refund for a non-refundable ticket.” 

Companies can also fall back on the dreaded “terms and conditions” in situations like these. In this case, Southwest argued that anyone who books a flight on its website or its mobile app is required to click and accept its terms. However, Judge Gallagher said "there is no factual support for [Southwest’s] assertion that plaintiffs actually agreed to the terms and conditions when they purchased their tickets."

"In short, there is no proof (beyond the unsworn allegations of defense counsel) that users of the Southwest website and mobile application must click on an icon to accept the terms and conditions before purchasing airline tickets.”

This question has been raised before with Southwest

When questions arose regarding Southwest’s policy on ticket refunds early on in the pandemic, Brian Parrish of the Southwest Communications Team told ConsumerAffairs that the carrier fully complies with the directive from the DOT.

Parrish said travelers may change their travel plans up to 60 days from the original flight date if they want to rebook. Consumers looking to take that route can visit Southwest.com/rebook and view flights that have seats available. He noted that rebooking online is generally a traveler’s best option because call volumes are likely to be very high to reach a Southwest Representative. On the other hand, he said travelers do not need to take any action if they are unsure of their future travel plans.

When ConsumerAffairs asked Parrish what the airline would do if one of its options doesn’t make the consumer happy, he said travelers “may request a full refund to the original form of payment.”

Subway has been slapped with a lawsuit alleging that its tuna salad doesn’t really contain any actual tuna. The class action suit -- filed by two California residents -- goes after the sandwich chain with a myriad of claims: fraud, intentional misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, false advertising, and unfair competition. In short, the suit claims Subway’s subs and wraps for "completely bereft of tuna as an ingredient."

The suit maintains that Subway "packaged, advertised, marketed, distributed and sold the Products to consumers" based on the "misrepresentation that the products were manufactured with tuna." The plaintiffs go on to claim that independent testing revealed that "the filling in the Products has no scintilla of tuna at all, (but) are made from a mixture of various concoctions that do not constitute tuna, yet have been blended together ... to imitate the appearance of tuna.”

The plaintiffs also claim that if “consumers (knew) the Products actually lacked tuna, they would not have purchased the Products or would have paid significantly less (than Subway’s $6.99 for a footlong tuna sub) for them.” 

Subway pushes back

As you might expect, Subway considers the lawsuit flimsy. 

“There simply is no truth to the allegations in the complaint that was filed in California. Subway delivers 100 percent cooked tuna to its restaurants, which is mixed with mayonnaise and used in freshly made sandwiches, wraps, and salads that are served to and enjoyed by our guests,” spokesperson Maggie Truax told USA Today.

The company called the lawsuit's accusations "baseless" and said they "threaten to damage our franchisees, small business owners who work tirelessly to uphold the high standards that Subway sets for all of its products, including its tuna."  

Is “flaked tuna” really tuna?

When is “tuna” really “tuna”? The lawsuit doesn’t get into the minutiae of what is and what isn’t tuna, only saying that Subway’s tuna is not. The plaintiffs say the product is an "entirely non-tuna-based mixture that Defendants blended to resemble tuna and imitate its texture." However, Truax defended Subway in her statement, saying the company uses “wild-caught tuna.”

When ConsumerAffairs dug a little deeper, we found that Subway’s ingredients list defines its tuna salad as “Flaked Tuna in Brine (tuna, water, salt), mayonnaise (soybean oil, eggs, water, distilled vinegar, contains less than 2 percent of salt, sugar, spice, lemon juice concentrate, calcium disodium EDTA added to protect flavor). Contains eggs and fish. May contain Mustard.” 

“Flaked tuna” is not chunk tuna or solid tuna, but rather the leftover pieces that tend to be very small fragments of the loin, according to Precision Nutrition’s Encyclopedia of Foods. Flaked tuna is also a common ingredient in cat food.

The plaintiffs are requesting class-action status for their lawsuit and want to tell their story in front of a jury. They’re also asking for "proper equitable and injunctive relief, the proper amount of restitution or disgorgement; and the proper amount of reasonable litigation expenses and attorneys’ fees."

Here we go again. Lyft and Uber drivers in California have filed a lawsuit to try to overturn Prop 22, a ballot measure passed in November that allowed ride-hailing companies to avoid classifying drivers as employees. 

Under the new law, benefits given to drivers for ride-sharing companies would be less than those afforded to real “employees.” Opponents say it also strips the state legislature’s ability to empower workers to organize a union and “illegally” cuts ride-hailing drivers from California’s state workers’ compensation program.

“Every day, rideshare drivers like me struggle to make ends meet because companies like Uber and Lyft prioritize corporate profits over our wellbeing,” plaintiff Saori Okawa said in a statement. “With Prop 22, they’re not just ignoring our health and safety — they’re discarding our state’s constitution.”

Uphill battle

As it is with many ballot initiatives, getting the word out can produce yays or nays at the polls. Companies like Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash poured over $200 million into the “Yes on 22” campaign, claiming that Prop 22 would strip the flexibility of gig drivers, increase consumer prices, and extend wait times. 

Unfortunately for Prop 22 opponents, they simply didn’t have the campaign funds to compete and sell their side of the story to the public.

Overturning Prop 22 is an uphill battle. In reviewing the lawsuit, The Verge’s Andrew J. Hawkins says the measure was written in such a way that it could withstand challenges down the road -- one of the more problematic ones being a provision that requires a seven-eighths majority of the state legislature for any modification.

Hawkins says that gig drivers are trying to argue that Prop 22 was illegal from its get-go. And while other groups have been lucky enough to get certain California ballot measures repealed in the past, they’ve achieved that through additional ballot measures -- a step that drivers and supportive unions are going to have to take if the lawsuit fails.

Fast-food chain Chick-fil-A has filed a lawsuit against 17 chicken suppliers for allegedly jacking up prices and rigging bids on billions of dollars in orders that the company made. The defendants include Perdue Farms, Tyson Foods, Pilgrim’s Pride, and Sanderson Farms alleging they shared bids and pricing details. 

Chicken has turned into a hot commodity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Not only is it harder to find on grocery shelves, but prices have shot up in recent months. 

Price-fixing problems

Interestingly, two of the groups named in Chick-fil-A’s lawsuit -- Pilgrim’s Pride and Tyson -- have been down this road already this year. In July, Tyson opted to cooperate in a Justice Department price-fixing investigation under a leniency program that allowed the company to avoid criminal prosecution in exchange for helping the feds in a probe of other poultry suppliers. In October, Pilgrim’s Pride reportedly agreed to a fine of $110.5 million in a plea deal with the DOJ, which had accused the producer of price-fixing. 

Chick-fil-A’s lawsuit went as far as calling the defendants’ moves a “conspiracy” and said that it had “reasonably foreseeable effects” on the company’s business in the United States.

Naturally, the defendants didn’t agree. “We believe these claims are unfounded and plan to contest the merits,” a spokesperson for Perdue told CNBC.

Bayer said Tuesday that it missed the Monday deadline to settle outstanding Roundup lawsuits alleging that its weed killing product causes cancer. 

The judge who set the deadline, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria in San Francisco, said in September that he intends to restart federal trials in order to move ahead with negotiations. Bayer is scheduled to appear before Chhabria again on Nov. 9. 

In an earnings statement, the company said it would need an extra $750 million on top of a settlement worth up to $10.9 billion it announced over the summer to resolve the lawsuits. 

Bayer -- which purchased Roundup’s maker Monsanto in 2018 -- has maintained that the herbicide and its key ingredient glyphosate does not cause cancer. The company’s assertion runs counter to a finding issued in 2015 by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, which classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

Bayer disclosed this week that 1,861 cases out of about 3,787 lawsuits aren’t controlled by agreements with plaintiffs’ lawyers. The company said it remains committed to settling all the Roundup cases. 

“The parties remain actively engaged in ongoing settlement discussions,” the company said in a court filing. “Monsanto is making contact with all of the counsel who represent these 1,861 plaintiffs.”

Due to the effects of the pandemic, Bayer said it doesn’t expect trials to occur before the third quarter of 2021. 

TikTok -- the video-sharing app under threat from the Trump administration’s push to get it from American soil -- laid a whopper of a counterpunch on the White House on Monday. It filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. government trying to fight for its rights and its existence.

Not unlike its recent effort to put all its cards on the table for the world to see, company officials once again took to the web to explain why they’re taking this action. They said legal steps had to be taken to protect the company’s rights, as well as the rights of its users.

“Over the past few years, people of all backgrounds have embraced the TikTok community. Today, 100 million Americans turn to TikTok for entertainment, inspiration, and connection; countless creators rely on our platform to express their creativity, reach broad audiences, and generate income,” the company’s blog post read.

“Our more than 1,500 employees across the U.S. pour their hearts into building this platform every day, with 10,000 more jobs planned in California, Texas, New York, Tennessee, Florida, Michigan, Illinois, and Washington State; and many of the country's leading brands are on TikTok to connect with consumers more authentically and directly than they can elsewhere.”

The lawsuit’s finer points

Much of the verbiage in the lawsuit is spent on legalities, but these are the main points that TikTok is trying to make:

• The Trump administration’s order leans heavily on hearsay and "unsubstantiated" claims to build its case against the company. "On its face, the (Trump administration’s) executive order fails to identify any unusual and extraordinary threat posed by TikTok — or any actual national security threat at all,” the suit claims.

• TikTok thinks the White House’s proposed ban is no more than a campaign tactic which sucks the legitimacy out of the whole order. "The president's actions clearly reflect a political decision to campaign on an anti-China platform,” TikTok wrote.

• Banning TikTok would violate the First Amendment because it takes away its American users’ right to free speech. 

TikTok would prefer to talk this over

TikTok knows time is tight. The Trump Administration has given the company until mid-September to pull up stakes and leave or allow itself to be bought by a U.S. company. It asserts that this ultimatum leaves it with no alternative but to pursue legal action.

“To be clear, we far prefer constructive dialogue over litigation,” the company said. “But with the Executive Order threatening to bring a ban on our U.S. operations – eliminating the creation of 10,000 American jobs and irreparably harming the millions of Americans who turn to this app for entertainment, connection, and legitimate livelihoods that are vital especially during the pandemic – we simply have no choice.”

Pricing products based on inventory is not new, but the New York State Attorney General is taking action against egg producers who have gotten a bit too enthusiastic with their markup during the pandemic by charging consumers far above normal prices.

New York Attorney General Letitia James has filed a lawsuit against Hillandale Farms, accusing the company of illegally marking up the price of its products during the coronavirus pandemic. Hillandale is one of the country’s largest producers and wholesale distributors of eggs. 

Quadrupling egg prices 

According to the lawsuit, James claims Hillandale quadrupled the price consumers typically pay for eggs on over four million cartons of its product. Overpriced eggs were sold to major grocery store chains, U.S. military facilities, and wholesale food distributors throughout New York during March and April.

During that two-month stretch when the coronavirus was raging through New York, James estimates that Hillandale made an estimated $4 million from “unlawfully increasing” the price of these eggs. To make matters worse, many of those eggs were sold in grocery stores located in low-income areas. 

“As this pandemic ravaged our country, Hillandale exploited hardworking New Yorkers to line its own pockets,” said Attorney General James. “In less than two months, Hillandale made millions by cheating our most vulnerable communities and our service members, actions that are both unlawful and truly rotten. I will always stand up for working people, especially when they are taken advantage of by corporate greed.”

Examples of the price gouging

To illustrate her point, James said that Hillandale charged Western Beef supermarkets $0.59 to $1.10 for a dozen large white eggs in January 2020. Then, on March 15, Hillandale jacked that price up another 39 cents. When the pandemic started to hit full stride, Hillandale raised the prices it charged Western Beef over and over, eventually asking $2.93 per dozen — a price almost five times the price Hillandale charged in January. 

Hillandale allegedly pulled the same trick on eggs sold to the commissary store at West Point, James said. In April, Hillandale charged West Point $3.15 per carton of large eggs, almost quadrupling the $0.84 price it charged three months earlier. The suit alleges that Hillandale repeated that same price scheme on eggs sold to Stop & Shop, BJ’s Wholesale Club, Associated Supermarkets, and commissary stores at U.S. military bases at Fort Hamilton and Fort Drum. 

Did consumers across the U.S. get hit with the same?

Is what James found in New York something that happened across the country? In ConsumerAffairs’ research, there was indeed a heightened demand for eggs during the early days of COVID-19 and a price jump, but not necessarily the same as New York.

In checking USDA data, the outbreak caused “large portions” of American consumers to stockpile eggs because the versatility of eggs is high when it comes to home cooking.

That, in concert with the typical Easter season demand, led to sharp price increases, the USDA said. Compared to February, the price for a dozen Large Grade A eggs in the New York wholesale market skyrocketed 77 percent to $1.94 a dozen. In comparison, the National Index Price rose 154 percent to $1.56 per dozen. The Central States Breaking Stock price rose 110 percent to 64 cents per dozen.

Egg prices today and the coming months

By and large, egg prices have come back to normal levels. There are some regional upticks like 3 cents higher for Jumbo eggs in California. Still, that’s nothing compared to the prices that James cites in her suit against Hillandale. 

Supplies of eggs are generally moderate, and the retail demand has backed off now that consumers are comfortable with the ins and outs of the pandemic. Two factors to consider in the coming months when it comes to egg prices are students returning to school and an uptick in egg buying as we approach the holiday season.

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt has filed a lawsuit against four timeshare exit companies, operated by a single individual.

The complaint alleges the timeshare exit companies, at the direction of the owner, solicited large payments from customers by promising to either transfer or terminate consumer timeshare interests within one year or the companies would buy out the interests themselves. 

While many people love their timeshares purchases, a large number later have a case of buyer’s remorse. Unfortunately, some timeshare contracts make it difficult to sell or otherwise resolve the obligation. Timeshare exit companies have sprung up in recent years, offering help to timeshare owners who want to stop paying for their units.

‘Found themselves in arrears’

The complaint names Vacation Consulting Services LLC, VCS Communications, LLC, The Transfer Group, LLC, and Real Travel L.L.C. The suit says after being paid large fees by timeshare owners, the companies failed to provide the result they promised.

“The exit groups did not make those payments as promised,” Schmitt’s office said in a press release. “As a result, many customers have found themselves in arrears with their respective timeshare holding companies.”

One reason timeshare contracts are so hard to reverse is that the transaction can be highly complex. In fact, there are two principal types of timeshares, both very different.

If it is a “deeded contract” timeshare, the buyer is one of 52 owners who is allowed to use the property one week out of the year. The transaction is a real property sale and the buyer is on the hook for a portion of real estate taxes, as well as maintenance fees.

Other timeshares are sold with “right-to-use” contracts. The buyer has no property ownership and they only have the right to use the property -- usually for a week each year. But at some point, the contract ends and all rights go back to the owner.

Complex contracts

Depending on the type of ownership, exiting the contract may carry different levels of complexity. Schmitt says owners who want out should talk to the timeshare operator first. Ask if the operator offers a deed-back or exit program. If talks are not successful, Schmitt says that may be the time to consult with an attorney.

If you are considering the purchase of a timeshare, buying from a reputable company that will explain all options could prevent future heartburn. ConsumerAffairs has collected thousands of reviews of some of the best timeshare companies here.

Boeing has been out of the news recently as it tried to mend all the setbacks with its 737 MAX aircraft. On Tuesday, however, the company found its way back into the news cycle after being hit with a $336 million lawsuit.

The company behind the dispute is ALAFCO, a Kuwaiti leasing company. ALAFCO claims that Boeing rebuffed its request to return advance payments for an order it placed -- then canceled -- for 40 of Boeing’s beleaguered MAX jets.

ALAFCO stands for Aviation Lease and Finance Company, with the majority of its customers in the Middle East and Asia. Its only U.S. lessor is economy carrier Sun Country Airlines.

The argument

ALAFCO simply wants its money -- $336,439,850 in advance payments -- back from Boeing. The leasing agency is taking the position that Boeing’s failure to deliver, coupled with the “circumstances” surrounding the grounding of the Max aircraft, “substantially impair the value of the purchase agreement as a whole.” 

ALAFCO appears to have a legal leg to stand on. It claims that canceling the order is “justified” under a section of the Uniform Commercial Code that protects buyers when deals go wrong because of delivery issues. 

Hard times continue for Boeing, but it’s not giving up

Boeing is in a difficult situation. The Federal Aviation Administration continues to be frustrated with the company’s efforts to remedy the 737 MAX's software issues, and it recently asked lenders for $10 billion to help offset the losses stemming from its 737 Max incidents.

This isn’t the first time an aircraft lessor has filed a suit against Boeing for failing to make good on delivery of a 737 MAX order. In December 2019, Timaero Ireland Ltd, an Ireland-based plane lessor, sued Boeing for $285 million over its failure to fulfill its part of an order for 22 of the 737 MAX aircraft.

Despite all of this, Boeing still has its game face on. In a recent letter to its employees, company CEO Dave Calhoun affirmed that the company “continue(s) to make good progress on returning the 737 MAX safely to service.”

Now that the T-Mobile/Sprint merger has been approved, New York Attorney General Letitia James has dropped the state’s case against the merger once and for all, including any threat of an appeal.

However, the 12 other states that stood shoulder-to-shoulder with New York have yet to decide what their next step will be.

Reuters reports that the attorneys general from California, Connecticut, and Massachusetts are weighing out their options; Michigan’s attorney general said it was not in a position to comment; and, as of Sunday, representatives from the other states and the District of Columbia had not replied to requests for comment.

The promise of more jobs made a difference

Colorado and Mississippi had already dropped their lawsuits regarding the merger in order to focus on the additional jobs they were promised as part of the merger. And it looks like the same promise may have also been a deal maker for New York.

“We are gratified that this process has yielded commitments from T-Mobile to create jobs in Rochester and engage in robust national diversity initiatives that will connect our communities with good jobs and technology,” James said in a statement.

“We hope to work with all the parties to ensure that consumers get the best pricing and service possible, that networks are built out throughout our state, and that good-paying jobs are created here in New York.”

After nearly three years of legal push and shove, Facebook has settled its lawsuit over the social media platform’s use of facial recognition.

During an earnings call on Wednesday, Facebook’s CFO, David Wehner, acknowledged that the company had struck a deal to resolve the lawsuit for $550 million.

This case came about out of Facebook's "Tag Suggestions" program, which the company launched in 2010. In Facebook’s way of life, a "tag" is where a user identifies others in photos they’ve posted to Facebook. 

At the time, the basic idea was to encourage more tagging, but the idea ran amuck when Facebook started using facial recognition technology that extracted biometric information about the people in those photos. Perhaps worse was the fact that Facebook failed to let anyone know that their biometric ID was being collected or stored. 

"Biometrics is one of the two primary battlegrounds, along with geolocation, that will define our privacy rights for the next generation,” said Jay Edelson, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs. “We hope and expect that other companies will follow Facebook's lead and pay significant attention to the importance of our biometric information." 

The settlement appears to be the final step in Facebook acquiescing that its users do indeed own their photos and that those photos are private. Just last year, the company took the first step by agreeing that it would no longer scan posted photos as a “default” part of its routine.

Where is this headed?

Biometric scanning is probably here to stay, like it or not. But, it’s a far cry from being perfect, much less an acceptable part of life. Until then, municipalities and companies say that the practice should be kept on the workbench until it can be used in an justifiable fashion.

San Francisco’s police force is reportedly fighting to ban facial recognition; Microsoft says Congress should find a way to regulate the practice; and Google’s attempts reportedly failed to discern people of color, as did Amazon’s.

Watch out for anything called Big Data

Roger McNamee, an early investor in Facebook who is very critical of its impact on society, contends that Big Tech’s use of what it likes to call Big Data is nothing more than code for extracting value from the consumer rather than creating it. 

“With each new generation of technology, entrepreneurs and engineers have an opportunity to profit from designing products that serve rather than exploit the needs of their users,” McNamee wrote in his book ‘Zucked.’

“At the end of the day, the best way to persuade Facebook and Google is to adopt human-driven technology to foster competition and demonstrate value in the marketplace,” he wrote. “The ideal would be to follow the Apple model set for facial recognition, where the data always remains on the smartphone, in the possession of the user.”

A 62-year-old street performer known as “Davy Rocks” was working near the Santa Monica pier when someone struck him from behind and knocked him over -- not with a motor vehicle, but with an e-scooter. The driver fled the scene, the performer David Petersen alleges in a new lawsuit filed against numerous e-scooter companies.

Los Angeles residents are no stranger to the area’s hit-and-run epidemic in which as many as 50 percent of drivers are estimated to flee the scene of crashes. That behavior is apparently crossing over to people who use dockless e-scooters.

According to the class-action lawsuit filed by Petersen and other plaintiffs, the dockless e-scooter industry is to blame for unleashing dangerous products on public sidewalks without providing proper safety instructions, equipment checks, or other safeguards.

A “human meat grinder”

The suit, filed last week in Los Angeles Superior Court, says that Bird, Lime, and other dockless e-scooter companies should be banned from doing business in California .

The suit charges that the companies fail to provide “adequate warnings and/or instructions” on their devices. It also says that the scooters often contain defective electronic or mechanical parts. It all adds up to an industry that takes “a wanton disregard for the safety of others,” the lawsuit claims.

Peterson told the Washington Post that following the crash, he required surgery on his arm. He now has five-inch scar and poor rotation thanks to the scooter that he described as a “human meat grinder.”

Most companies named in the suit declined to give a statement to the paper.

“We believe that the climate crisis and our car dependency demand a transportation mode shift, and clean energy vehicles like e-scooters are already replacing millions of short car trips,” a Bird spokesman responded to the Post in a statement.

Deaths and injuries on the rise

The fact that e-scooters are replacing gas guzzling cars is a familiar talking point, but it doesn’t address whether that means scooters should be treated and regulated like cars.

The devices can reach up to 25 miles per hour, but many users ride on the sidewalks with their scooters rather than using the streets or bike lanes. Where exactly scooter riders should travel in remains a legal grey area.

Scooter-related injuries and even deaths have shot up as the industry comes to more United States cities. In Dallas, a 24-year-old was recently killed after trying to ride a dockless e-scooter home. He was reportedly found unresponsive next to a scooter that was cut in half, and his family has asked police to investigate the possibility of a hit-and-run.

Nestle Waters North America, which owns Poland Spring, is seeking dismissal of a class action lawsuit that alleged the Maine-based company's bottled water did not come from springs.

The company introduced as evidence a number of documents, including a letter from the State of Maine Drinking Water Program (DWP) that affirmed all eight of Poland Spring brand springs in the state “meet the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) definition of spring water.”

In August, 11 plaintiffs filed a class action suit in Connecticut claiming that Poland Spring brand water is essentially filtered ground water, an accusation the company denied at the time.

“The DWP, which is the state agency that enforces the implementation of FDA rules about bottled water in Maine, has issued these letters to us in the past,” a Nestle Waters spokesperson told ConsumerAffairs. “This most recent letter verifies that all eight of the spring water sources are approved in the State of Maine.”

The spokesperson added that Poland Spring labels are accurate when they declare that the product is “100 percent natural spring water.”

Accorrding to the Beverage Marketing Corporation, bottled water overtook carbonated beverages in U.S. sales last year. Michael Bellas, CEO of Beverage Marketing Corporation says that bottled water has effectively reshaped the beverage marketplace.

"When Perrier first entered the country in the 1970s, few would have predicted the heights to which bottled water would eventually climb,” Bellas said earlier this year.

He added that bottled water sales have increased every year from 1977 to 2016, with the exception of two years during the Great Recession.

As 143 million compromised Equifax customers either scramble to freeze their credit, seek security services, or wait to see happens next, some are electing to take legal action.

Attorneys throughout the U.S. have filed more than a dozen class action lawsuits against the credit bureau.

Oakland, California-based Scott Cole & Associates filed a class action claiming "negligence, violations of fair credit reporting and deceptive business practices."

The Doss Firm LLC has filed a class action suit on behalf of the estimated 28 million small business owners who may have been affected by the data breach. Attorney Jason Doss said small business operators are particularly vulnerable since they rely on personal and business credit to operate.

What is a class action?

Unlike an individual lawsuit, a class action is filed on behalf of a "class" of plaintiffs who all have the same or similar grievances. In a case affecting as many people as the Equifax breach, it is very likely that many of the suits will be combined into a smaller number of cases.

Unlike an individual lawsuit, a plaintiff does not have to hire an attorney or incur any legal costs. And unlike an individual lawsuit, members of the "class" don't have to take much action at all.

If you are among the 143 million consumers whose data may have been exposed, you are already a member of the "class."

"At some point, [Equifax customers] will get a notice asking whether we want to opt out of the class action," said Vanderbilt University law professor Brian Fitzpatrick. "As a general matter, I recommend that people do not opt out. It will be very hard to sue Equifax on your own. The nice thing about a class action is someone does all the work for us."

Consumers are free to sue on their own

Because there are millions of potential plaintiffs, any class action settlement may result in a rather small individual judgment. If you think you have a major case against Equifax, you are free to sue the company individually. In that case, Fitzpatrick says you might consider opting out of the class action.

"If you do not opt out of the class action when you have the chance and the class action is unsuccessful, then you lose your right to sue Equifax on your own," he said.

Most people, he says, will be better off remaining in the class, having a good chance to share in a settlement without having to hire a lawyer.

Fitzpatrick suggests consumers document how much time and money they have spent placing freezes and fraud alerts, or otherwise dealing with the data breach. He says they may be able to use that information to increase their recovery sum in any settlement.

A class action lawsuit, filed in Connecticut, seeks damages from Nestle Waters, claiming its Poland Spring bottled water doesn't actually come from springs.

Eleven consumers are listed as plaintiffs in the case, charging Nestle has used the association between spring water and purity as a marketing ploy to sell, what the suit claims, is essentially filtered ground water, charging a premium price.

In a statement, Nestle Waters, based on Stamford, Conn., said the suit has no merit, and further branded it an attempt to “manipulate the the legal system for personal gain.” It also said Poland Spring meets the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) legal definition of spring water.

Defining spring water

In fact, the FDA's regulations covering bottled water and how it is defined are both extensive and specific. Among the criteria to be called spring water are:

• The water flows naturally to the surface of the earth
• The water is collected only at the spring or through a bore hole tapping the underground formation feeding the spring
• A natural force causes the water to flow to the surface through a natural orifice
• The location of the spring is identified
• Water collected with the use of an external force shall be from the same underground stratum as the spring, as shown by a measurable hydraulic connection using a hydrogeologically valid method between the bore hole and the natural spring, and shall have all the physical properties, before treatment, and be of the same composition and quality, as the water that flows naturally to the surface of the earth

Previous litigation

This is not the first time the issue has been raised. The Portland (Maine) Press Herald reports Nestle Waters faced a similar lawsuit in 2003, with the plaintiffs alleging that the company's marketing was misleading about where the water originated.

According to the report, the suit was settled out of court, with the company providing about $8 million in consumer discounts and more than $2 million given to charitable organizations.

Bottled water has become big business in the U.S. over the last two decades. In March, Beverage Marketing Corporation reported that bottled water overtook carbonated beverages in U.S. sales last year.

"Bottled water effectively reshaped the beverage marketplace," said Michael Bellas, CEO of Beverage Marketing Corporation, said at the time. "When Perrier first entered the country in the 1970s, few would have predicted the heights to which bottled water would eventually climb.”

He says bottled water sales have increased every year from 1977 to 2016, with the exception of two year during the Great Recession.

Actress Jessica Alba's Honest Co. has agreed to pay $7.35 million to settle claims that its "all natural" toothpaste, floor cleaners, and so forth aren't all that natural, while continuing to deny that it did anything wrong.

The proposed deal would settle four separate class action lawsuits and would return $2.50 as payment or credit for each Honest Co. product that class members purchased, up to ten products each.

“This settlement in no way changes the fact that our marketing practices are entirely appropriate and we will continue to market products as ‘natural,’” Honest Co. said in a statement.

Honest Co., co-founded by Alba in 2011, makes a wide range of household products that it says are free of harsh chemicals. The lawsuits cited independent tests which showed that the products contained synthetic and toxic ingredients, Reuters reported. 

Honest Co. said it settled the lawsuit to limit the cost and distraction of litigation. The company denied that it had fraudulently labeled its products.

A jury in California last week awarded $60 million in statutory and punitive damages to more than 8,000 consumers who sued TransUnion, one of the three credit reporting agencies.

The consumers filed the class action, claiming that TransUnion violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) when it misidentified them in their credit reports as terrorists and drug traffickers. It turns out the real bad guys had names that were similar to the plaintiffs in the case.

The plaintiffs will each receive more than $7,300 as their share of the award, after they were wrongly identified in their credit reports as being engaged in criminal activity.

The FCRA requires credit reporting agencies to ensure that the information contained in consumers' credit reports is as accurate as possible. The law is intended to protect consumers from misinformation being used against them.

Importance of class action suits

Lawyers at the National Consumer Law Center said the case underscores the importance of class actions and consumer protection laws that allow consumers to seek relief in court. They pointed out that Trans Union had defended the mistakes by arguing that consumers weren't hurt financially.

“TransUnion falsely tagged innocent consumers as potential terrorists or drug dealers and then decided it was ‘no big deal’ because the consumers didn’t lose any money,” said National Consumer Law Center attorney Chi Chi Wu. “But these 8000-plus consumers had their reputations unfairly maligned.”

Wu said in this particular case, consumers might not have had much individual recourse to get relief. It was only through the class action that they were able to get their day in court.

“This case also shows the critical importance of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) final rule against forced arbitration clauses in consumer financial contracts, which we hope will be issued soon,” said Lauren Saunders, associate director of the National Consumer Law Center. “This case could not have gone forward if consumers were bound by a forced arbitration clause with a class action ban.”

The $60 million award was the largest ever in a case involving the FCRA, according to the National Consumer Law Center.

A previously dismissed class action suit against Whole Foods may once again see life after a three-judge panel determined that the first ruling was unwarranted.

Lead plaintiff Sean John had initially filed the suit on behalf of consumers who were overcharged for pre-packaged products by the retailer, but he was rebuffed on the grounds that he did not have sufficient evidence that he was overcharged on a specific purchase. However, the newest ruling says that this was too tough a standard to impose in the early stages of the case.

“At the pleading stage, John need not prove the accuracy of the DCA’s findings or the rigor of its methodology; he need only generally allege facts that, accepted as true, make his alleged injury plausible,” said U.S. Circuit Judge Raymond Lohier, according to Courthouse News.

Tough road ahead

Problems began for Whole Foods back in 2015 when the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) found that it routinely overcharged customers by exaggerating the weight of prepackaged foods during checkout. The department said that overcharges “ranged from $0.80 for a package of pecan panko to $14.84 for a package of coconut shrimp,” in a press release at the time.

Though Whole Foods initially denied the allegations, co-CEOs Walter Robb and John Mackey later admitted that some company employees were in the wrong and pledged to improve training to address the problem. However, class actions from consumers like John sought reimbursement and compensation for the wrongful practices.

With the reviving of the suit, Lohier says that John will still face a tough road because of his lack of evidence, but that he does meet the “‘low threshold’ required to plead injury in fact.”

In a statement, a Whole Foods spokesperson said that the company was “disappointed in the court’s decision, which procedurally allows the case to move forward,” but that it would “continue to vigorously defend against the plaintiff’s meritless claims.”

Of course, this isn’t the only legal trouble that Whole Foods needs to worry about in relation to the DCA’s findings. Shareholders have also brought a class action suit against the company, noting that the common stock dropped 11.61% after the agency's announcement on July 30,2015. 

-----

Editor's note:  This story is about a class-action lawsuit. If you are among the class of consumers described in the suit, you may eventually be eligible to participate in whatever compensation the court awards, if any. Unlike what many people think, you do not "join" a class action -- you are either in the class covered by the action or you are not. 

Often, consumers included in an award do not need to take any action, as the defendant is required to contact them directly. In other cases, the court and the attorneys who brought the case will issue instructions when the case is settled.

Please note that under our Privacy Policy, we cannot provide you with the names of other consumers who may be similarly affected. 

Please see our Class Action Guide for more information.

Chances are the car you drive isn't a 1988 model. If it is, you can stop reading, but if it isn't, pay attention.

A class action lawsuit charges that Dollar General is knowingly selling store-brand motor oil that's not safe to use in cars built after 1988. No one denies this. In fact, the discount chain admits in the fine print on the oil's label that it is not suitable for modern cars. 

The label on the back of DG Auto SAE 10W-30 and 10W-40 oils states that the products are “not suitable for use in most gasoline powered automotive engines built after 1988” and “may not provide adequate protection against build-up of engine sludge.”

Aggrieved consumers say no one sees the warning, which is in small print. 

In fact, a Houston man named Michael Deck sued Dollar General in 2015, saying that although the product has a disclaimer on its label, it "further disguises the obsolete and harmful nature" of its motor oils by placing them on shelves next to various other motor oils, such as PEAK, Pennzoil and Castrol, that are suitable for modern vehicles.

The latest lawsuit was filed on behalf of Wisconsin consumers in Green Bay federal court. It charges that the "entire line of DG Auto Obsolete Motor Oil Products is unsuitable for the modern-day vehicles driven by its customers, except that it is successfully deceiving a sufficient number of customers to make this fraudulent practice profitable and therefore worthwhile,” Courthouse News Service reported.

Previous complaints

While this may seem surprising, it's not really anythinig new. Dollar General began selling its line of company-branded motor oil in 2010, according to the complaint, and there have been frequent complaints, not to mention lawsuits, ever since. In June 2016, several lawsuits were transferred to a court in Missouri

The Wisconsin class is represented by John Blythin of Ademi & O’Reilly in Cudahy, Wis.

Editor's note:  This story is about a class-action lawsuit. If you are among the class of consumers described in the suit, you may eventually be eligible to participate in whatever compensation the court awards, if any. Unlike what many people think, you do not "join" a class action -- you are either in the class covered by the action or you are not. 

Often, consumers included in an award do not need to take any action, as the defendant is required to contact them directly. In other cases, the court and the attorneys who brought the case will issue instructions when the case is settled.

Please note that under our Privacy Policy, we cannot provide you with the names of other consumers who may be similarly affected. 

Please see our Class Action Guide for more information.

A nationwide class action claims that Mylan NV coerced consumers into buying two-packs of EpiPens at wildly exaggerated prices. A federal judge in Kansas yesterday named three lawyers to manage the lawsuit.

“This suit is about taking a stand for Americans who suffer life-threatening conditions,” Dallas lawyer Warren T. Burns said. “We intend to send a message to Mylan and other companies that preying on the weak and the sick is no longer an accepted method of padding their bottom line.” 

Mylan, the U.S. distributor of EpiPens, was vilified last year after raising the price of its life-saving product from $100 in 2008 to more than $600 by 2016. EpiPens offer a life-saving dose of epinephrine (adrenaline) to children and adults suffering acute allergic reactions. Congress and federal agencies have since opened investigations into EpiPen pricing.

The lawsuit argues that Mylan also used patent lawsuits and administrative actions to delay the entry of competitors that might have undercut its prices. The plaintiffs claim those actions violate state antitrust and consumer protection laws, as well as the federal RICO racketeering statute.

"A fraudulent scheme"

“What we are seeing is a fraudulent scheme designed to maintain high corporate profits,” Burns said. “At the same time it was raking in cash, Mylan was forcing American children and adults to choose between purchasing an overpriced drug or risking death. This just can’t be how business is conducted in America.” 

“This is an important case for all Americans,” Burns said. “This is a test case for whether Americans can put effective stops on runaway drug pricing.” 

Attorneys in San Francisco have filed a class action suit against electronics equipment maker Netgear, claiming its CM700 high-speed cable modem is defective.

The suit, filed on behalf of consumers by the firm of Schubert, Jonckheer & Kolbe, claims the device contains a serious defect that causes high spikes in network delays, making users' internet connections less efficient.

The suit, filed earlier this month in federal court in San Francisco, claims Netgear promoted the the modem as "ideal for the fastest Internet speed services plan." However, the complaint alleges it suffers from major network latency spikes.

It cites complaints it said it found on online forums, posted by consumers having difficulty with the equipment.

'Acknowledged the issue'

The attorneys say Netgear has acknowledged that there is an issue but has not fixed the problem. In December, Netgear introduced an upgraded cable modem, the CM1000.

"Consumers paid top dollar for a high-end cable modem, but the Netgear CM700 suffers from a serious flaw that affects network connections," said Noah Schubert, a partner at Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe. "Netgear and other cable modem manufacturers shipping modems with the defect should recall the affected models and issue refunds."

The complaint maintains the issue arose when Netgear decided to swap out the Broadcom chipset in the CM700 with the Puma 6 chipset from Intel. The firm says Intel has acknowledged its Puma 6's chipset can cause cable modems to suffer from significant jitter and latency on their network connections.

The law firms says modems from other manufacturers may also be affected. A list of models and manufacturers is contained in this document.

The suit seeks a partial refund for consumers who purchased the CM700.

Consumers who buy a new car these days expect to have all the latest technology at their fingertips, and things can get messy when automakers don’t follow through on their promises. That seems to be the case with Tesla, which is facing a class action lawsuit after buyers of its vehicles said that the Enhanced Autopilot AP 2.0 software and Standard Safety Features weren't working.

The class says this loss of functionality could be dangerous if a driver isn’t aware of the issue and relies on the features.

“Unwittingly, buyers of affected vehicles have become beta testers of half-baked software that renders Tesla vehicles dangerous if engaged,” the lawsuit says.

Failing to deliver

Class members paid up to $5,000 to have the features included in the vehicle they bought. Enhanced Autopilot AP 2.0 was touted as a “safe” and “stress-free” tool for drivers, but owners say that it has made driving more dangerous.

Further, the lawsuit states that Tesla has failed to follow through on its promises regarding Standard Safety Features, which include things like automatic emergency braking, front collision warning, side collision warning, and auto high beams. The company allegedly told consumers that the updates would be available by the end of last year, but the plaintiffs say most have yet to be released.

 “Tesla has endangered the lives of tens of thousands of Tesla owners across the country, and induced them to pay many thousands of dollars for a product that Tesla has not effectively designed. . . Tesla sold these vehicles as the safest sedan on the road. What consumers received were cards without standard safety enhancements featured by cars costing less than half the price of a new Tesla, and a purported ‘Enhanced Autopilot’ that operates in an erratic and dangerous manner,” said attorney Steve Berman, who is representing the plaintiffs.

"Smoke and mirrors"

The complaint provides accounts from consumers who claim that their vehicles acted erratically. One consumer describes two extreme cases on opposite ends of the spectrum.

“[You] can be sailing along at 50 mph and the radar spots [an approaching] bridge and immediately slams on the brakes. . . The other extreme is that you approach a stoplight with a car already stopped, and the Tesla doesn’t apply the brakes at all. It’s really a pretty scary experience,” the driver said.

“When consumers received these pricy vehicles, it became clear that Tesla’s marketing was all smoke and mirrors. And Tesla knew when it made these promises that it didn’t have the capabilities to follow through on its deal. It knowingly deceived tens of thousands who put their faith in these cars and in Tesla,” Berman added.

The complaint estimates that approximately 47,000 affected Model S and Model X vehicles were sold in the fourth quarter of 2016 and the first quarter of 2017. The suit seeks to reclaim economic losses for plaintiffs who paid a premium price for the Standard Safety Features or the Enhanced Autopilot. The class is being represented by consumer-rights class-action law firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

-----

Editor's note:  This story is about a class-action lawsuit. If you are among the class of consumers described in the suit, you may eventually be eligible to participate in whatever compensation the court awards, if any. Unlike what many people think, you do not "join" a class action -- you are either in the class covered by the action or you are not. 

Often, consumers included in an award do not need to take any action, as the defendant is required to contact them directly. In other cases, the court and the attorneys who brought the case will issue instructions when the case is settled.

Please note that under our Privacy Policy, we cannot provide you with the names of other consumers who may be similarly affected. 

Please see our Class Action Guide for more information.

A class action suit filed against Harbor Freight Tools, a discount tool chain operating 750 U.S. locations, could refund shoppers up to 30% on purchases made within a 5-6-year period. The company recently settled the suit, which alleged that it used misleading sales practices.

Plaintiff Jeffrey Beck stated that the company advertised certain products at “sale” and “compare at” prices even though those items weren’t originally sold at a higher price to begin with. He stated that the sales practice effectively created the illusion of a discount to draw in customers. However, federal regulations dictate that an item can only be marked “on sale” if it was sold at a higher original price for 28 of the preceding 90 days.

Getting a refund

If the settlement is approved, customers who bought products from Harbor Freight between April 8, 2011 and December 15, 2016 could receive a partial refund. However, just how big of a refund one receives depends on certain criteria:

• Customers who saved itemized receipts of their purchase that display a “You Saved” amount will receive 20% off the amount they paid in cash or 30% as a Harbor Freight gift card.
• Customers who have a credit or debit card statement that proves they shopped at Harbor Freight during the covered period may receive 10% off the amount they paid in cash or 12% as a Harbor Freight gift card.
• Customers who have no documentation of a purchase but claim they bought items during the covered period may receive a $10 Harbor Freight gift card. However, those who make false claims and are found out will be subject to perjury charges and could face stiff penalties.

Consumers who wish to receive a payment must complete a claim form and either mail it or submit it online no later than August 7, 2017. 

An employee lawsuit may see a Maine dairy company on the hook for millions of dollars, according to a report from the New York Times. Truck drivers with Oakhurst Dairy sued the company back in 2014, alleging that they were owed four years’ worth of unpaid overtime.

The court decision handed down Monday could pay out members of the class action $10 million, but it wasn’t standard legal precedents that won the day for the plaintiffs. Instead, it was a lesson in grammar – more specifically, the use of the Oxford, or serial, comma – that may end up costing the company.

The Oxford comma

For those of you in need of grammar refresher, Oxford commas are punctuations that often show up when listing items. For example, the second comma in a list like “eggs, milk, and bread” is an Oxford comma showing a clear demarcation between the items.

However, many writers – and even certain organizations and writing style formats – omit the Oxford comma. The problem is that not using it can sometimes make things ambiguous and lead to misunderstandings. One example can be seen from the following phrase cited by nit-pickers' favorite website, Grammarly:

I love my parents, Lady Gaga and Humpty Dumpty.

This could be taken to mean that your parents are Lady Gaga and Humpty Dumpty. A clearer, though arguably choppier, version is:

 I love my parents, Lady Gaga, and Humpty Dumpty.

This makes it clear, at least to the careful reader, that one's parents are not in fact modern celebrities or fairy tale characters.

It's not only the serial comma that's important, of course. Perhaps the best-known example comes from "Eats Shoots & Leaves," a somewhat wry best seller of a few years back, penned by fed-up editor Lynne Truss. The title refers to the diet of the panda, although the strategic addition of a few commas could modify it to describe a gentleman's quick visit to his mistress. 

Ambiguous and uncertain

In the court decision, a similar misunderstanding may be what leads to a judgment against Oakhurst Dairy. Maine state law dictates that overtime rules do not apply to the following cases:

The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution of:

1. Agricultural produce;
2. Meat and fish products; and
3. Perishable foods.

You’ll note that there is no comma after the “packing for shipment” section of the law. The question that arises, then, is whether the law intends to exempt the distribution of the three categories or specifically "the packing for the shipping or distribution of" those items.

The plaintiff truck drivers argue that they do indeed distribute those items but don’t pack the boxes themselves. Therefore, they say, it should follow that they are applicable for overtime pay.

An appeals court on Monday said that the lack of a comma created ambiguity and uncertainty and sided with the drivers, reversing a lower court decision. Between 2010 and 2014, the drivers earned between $46,800 and $52,000 per year and worked an average of 12 overtime hours per week. So, the suit could pay out $10 million to 75 drivers in the class.

Just rewrite it

David G. Webbert, the lawyer who represented the drivers, wasn’t shy about saying that the comma was a make-or-break facet of the case. “That comma would have sunk our ship,” he was quoted as saying in an interview on Wednesday.

Oakhurst Dairy, meanwhile, has reaffirmed its belief that it is on the right side of the law. “We believe we’re in compliance with state and federal wage laws, and we’ll continue to defend ourselves in this matter,” said President John. H. Bennett on Thursday.

Bennett also echoed advice that many writers may have heard from college professors and teachers growing up; if there’s any instance of ambiguity, just go back and rewrite the sentence.

A class action suit has been filed against the United States military, alleging that many servicemen and women are being denied full disability benefits.

Retired Marine Corporal Simon Soto claims that members of the U.S. Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard are being denied the full amount of their retroactive Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC).

Denied benefits

Soto performed military duties in two tours of Iraq in a mortuary affairs unit, processing the remains of deceased soldiers. He claims that the experiences, which took place over the course of 10 years of service, were often very disturbing and left him with vivid nightmares and psychological damage. He describes graphic scenes of bagging remains that had been blown up and dismembered beyond recognition.

After receiving seven medals and other honors with the Marines, he retired from active duty in April 2006 and was found by the Department of Veterans Affairs to be 100% disabled by post-traumatic stress disorder, which made him eligible to receive disability payments under CRSC.

However, Soto put off receiving his benefits until June 2016, at which time he was told that he no longer qualified for the full amount of retroactive compensation. The suit states that the Navy office would only pay the ex-servicemen for six of the eight and a half years he had been entitled to after retiring.

Misinterpretation

The suit alleges that the military is misreading the CRSC’s retroactive payment cap clause to the detriment of Soto and others like him.

It states that the six-year limit is imposed for survivor benefits, travel costs, payments for unused leave, and retirement pay – but not for combat-related special compensation, such as the disability compensation that Soto is entitled to. As a result, Soto claims that he is eligible for eight and half years of retroactive payments instead of six.

The suit estimates that nearly 89,000 military retirees are also being shortchanged by the cap. It is seeking class certification and damages of up to $10,000 per affected member. The case is being handled by Tracy LeRoy of Sidley Austin LLP's Houston, Texas, office.

What to do

Editor's note:  This story is about a class-action lawsuit. If you are among the class of consumers described in the suit, you may eventually be eligible to participate in whatever compensation the court awards, if any. Unlike what many people think, you do not "join" a class action -- you are either in the class covered by the action or you are not. 

Often, consumers included in an award do not need to take any action, as the defendant is required to contact them directly. In other cases, the court and the attorneys who brought the case will issue instructions when the case is settled.

Please note that under our Privacy Policy, we cannot provide you with the names of other consumers who may be similarly affected. 

Please see our Class Action Guide for more information.

It took Samsung many months to issue a recall of top-loading washing machines that can basically shake themselves apart and send pieces flying through consumers' laundry rooms. Now an Oklahoma man says the company hasn't followed through on its recall of the machines.

In a lawsuit seeking class action status, Jerry Wells says the remedies Samsung is offering aren't adequate. Wells says he has made numerous attempts to have his machine repaired, alleging that although he made three appointments, no service person ever showed up.

Wells isn't alone. Many other consumers have complained that Samsung either refused to repair their washer or, as in Wells' case, failed to do so successfully.

“I was told they would refund my money,” D.C. of Rosewell, Ga., wrote in a ConsumerAffairs review. “Then my refund was denied stating my receipt was 'blurry.' I honestly feel retailers should step in and help consumers. I now sit with a washing machine that is not usable as it sounds like a jet ready to take off when it is in use.”

"My new Samsung washer has slammed itself all over the laundry room. I have readjusted it on about every load. It barely uses any water and soap is stuck to my jeans. I have never washed bedding," said Cindy of Jacksonville, Ala. "It goes nuts on towels or jeans. Now I find out it is on recall. ... I guess they didn't want to refund my money."

Consumers get a choice, sort of

The recall offered consumers the choice of a warranty extension and in-home repair, a rebate on a new machine, or a complete refund if the consumer had purchased the machine within 30 days of the date the recall was issued.

Wells says he chose the warranty extension and repair, but Samsung has failed to deliver. His suit seeks to represent consumers who purchased one of the 34 recalled models between March 2011 and November 2016. He is asking for a court order that would require Samsung to replace parts or entire washers free of charge.

Wells also asks the court to bar Samsung from continuing to manufacture the top-loading machines, saying they are a hazard to consumers' safety.

Samsung has conceded that it has received nine reports of injuries resulting from flying parts, including a broken jaw and injured shoulder. It has received hundreds of reports of damage to the machine resulting from excessive vibration.

Wells' case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. He is represented by attorney William B. Federman.

Can a pillow really prevent multiple sclerosis? Maybe, but there's no scientific evidence to back up the claim and, as a result, MyPillow has agreed to stop marketing its pillow as being able to prevent, treat, or cure diseases or symptoms unless it has scientific evidence to support its claims.

The agreement stems from a lawsuit filed last month by the Alameda County, Calif., District Attorney that focused on MyPillow’s unsubstantiated claims to treat conditions such as insomnia, sleep apnea, and fibromyalgia and the company’s cozy relationship with the National Sleep Foundation.

The lawsuit, joined by eight other California counties, alleged that MyPillow “knew or reasonably should have known” that the marketing claims were likely to mislead consumers.

The lawsuit followed an investigation by Truth in Advertising, Inc., (TINA.org)  a non-profit organization that provided information to California consumer protection officials.

As part of the California agreement, MyPillow must stop making claims it can't substantiate and must also pay $995,000 in civil penalties and give $100,000 to homeless and domestic violence shelters in the state.

“MyPillow is pleased to have reached an agreement with Alameda County," MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell said in a statement. "With this settlement, we are able to avoid a costly and drawn out court case and turn our attention back to our number one passion, our customers. As part of the settlement, MyPillow will make a $100,000 donation to nonprofit organizations in California that help the homeless and victims of domestic violence."

In a separate class action lawsuit recently settled in San Bernardino Superior Court, MyPillow agreed to pay $5.00 per household to MyPillow purchasers who submit a claim form.

"Official pillow"

MyPillow must also stop promoting its product as the “official pillow” of the National Sleep Foundation, after the TINA investigation found that the company had failed to disclose its financial connection with the foundation to consumers.

“Companies making millions from unsupported health claims that are warned by TINA.org to halt their deceptive marketing practices are going to pay a price if they don’t comply,” said TINA.org Executive Director Bonnie Patton.

The California suit isn't the only issue that has Minnesota-based MyPillow tossing and turning at night. In August, the company agreed to pay $1.1 million to New York State, which alleged that MyPillow had knowingly failed to collect sales tax on pillows sold to sleepy New Yorkers.

“Out-of-state companies like MyPillow cannot shirk their obligations to New York. Companies that fail to collect and remit applicable sales taxes harm the State and local governments — something that cannot be tolerated,” said New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. 

MyPillow also faces multiple class-action lawsuits that dispute company founder Michael J. Lindell's claim to be a "sleep expert," take issue with its use of the New York Times logo to imply that its products are endorsed by the newspaper, and assail the legitimacy of MyPillow's buy-one-get-one-free offer. 

As we reported a few weeks ago, Blue Buffalo has agreed to pay $32 million to settle a class action lawsuit that charged its products made pets sick. The settlement administrator has now provided details of how affected consumers can apply for reimbursement.

Consumers eligible for reimbursement must have purchased a Blue Buffalo product in the United States between May 7, 2008 and December 18, 2015. Consumers can receive $5 for each $50 worth of Blue Buffalo products purchased between those dates. 

Consumers must complete a claim form and include either proof of purchase or sign a statement certifying under penalty of perjury how much they spent on Blue Buffalo products.

What to do

Complete details are available on the official settlement site -- https://www.petfoodsettlement.com/. This is the only official site. It includes links to the claim form and other documents. 

Consumers should not contact Blue Buffalo, the court, or ConsumerAffairs. All of the necessary information is on the official settlement site.

Denies wrongdoing

Blue Buffalo has denied any wrongdoing and says health problems encountered by consumers' pets may have been caused by supplier misconduct.

"More than a year ago, we informed our Pet Parents about the misconduct of a former ingredient supplier and a broker. While we will continue to pursue our claims against them, we decided that it is in the best interest of our Pet Parents and our company to resolve the class actions now," said Bill Bishop, chairman and founder of Blue Buffalo.

Learn more about pet food

Many drivers are all-too-aware of the dangers that animals can have on the road. Hitting a larger one, or getting into an accident while trying to avoid a smaller one, can really take a toll on a consumer’s wallet. But a new class action shows that animals can also wreak havoc on your car when it’s not being used.

Consumers from three states have filed suit against Honda for breaching its warranty contract, according to a Courthouse News Service report. The plaintiffs claim that the automaker refused to cover repairs caused by rabbits, mice, and squirrels chewing through soy-based electrical wiring on their vehicles.

Shredded wiring

The suit was put together after several consumers complained about the wiring on their cars being chewed through by small animals. Greg Delaney, from Arizona, said that he had to take his vehicle to a dealership after he found that the wiring was “shredded through.” The dealership looked into the issue and found a live rabbit still chewing on the wiring on the car.

When it came time to pay for the repair, the dealership said that the problem did not fall under warranty. A report says that Delaney “was charged and paid approximately $765 for the repair.”

This was not an isolated incident, though. Texas consumer Sean Rickard faced a similar problem when he found that animals had chewed through the power steering wires on his Honda Accord. He ended up paying a $500 deductible on his $1,400 bill, and the dealership once again claimed that issue was not covered under warranty.

Aware of the issue

To date, several different consumers have reported similar issues, saying that small animals are drawn to the soy-based insulation on 2012-2015 Honda vehicles. Delaney, Rickard, and lead plaintiff Daniel Dobbs point out that Honda is well aware of the issue, saying that the company “actually sells rodent repellent tape used to wrap electric wiring in order to deal with the propensity of having this wiring chewed through by rodents and other animals attracted to the soy component of the wires.”

The automaker has stated that the soy-based insulation his cheaper and better for the environment, but have declined to comment on the suit to this point.

The plaintiffs are seeking class certification, actual and statutory damages for breach of warranty, and the formation of a common fund for all legal costs and fees associated with the case. 

Front-loading washing machines have become a big headache for a lot of consumers and, it now appears, their manufacturers. The Supreme Court yesterday turned down appeals from Whirlpool, Sears and Bosch, which were seeking to block class action cases charging that defects in the washers cause them to accumulate mold.

"From the beginning we have had mold issues with the machine," said Howard of Washington Crossing, Pa., in a review on ConsumerAffairs about his Whirlpool Duet. "The entire house fills with the smell of rotten eggs everytime we use it."

Howard said the company has refused to acknowledge that the machine has a problem and the only advice it has offered is to use chemicals to get rid of the moldy smell.

Class action lawsuits against the companies say, as did Howard, that the machines don't clean themselves properly, allowing mold to build up rapidly, leaving clothes and consumers' homes smelling bad. The companies claim that the problems affect only a small handful of consumers.

Rebuffed

The high court wasn't buying the company line though and rebuffed the companies' appeals without comment, allowing the suits to move forward.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups had backed the companies' appeals, hoping to again crush consumers' attempts to press their case. The pro-business groups had successfully turned aside suits involving Wal-Mart and Comcast in recent years.

Many of the Whirlpool and Sears customers are irked not only by the problems they've encountered with the machines but also with the "Made in USA" hoopla that Whirlpool uses in promoting its products.

"We bought this machine because it said 'proudly made in USA.' Next time I'll support the Korean economy and buy a reliable, durable Samsung," said Mark of Weddington, N.C.

Sears said the case “opens the door to class actions based on any mass-produced product’s failure to meet expectations of a handful of consumers, no matter how few other buyers had the same problem.”

But the reports of issues are widespread, coming from consumers across the country, many of them having worked diligently but unsuccessfully to find a solution to the problem. 

Cheryl of Williamston, Mich., said she bought a new Whirlpool Duet in 2007 and had it repaired numerous times before giving up in 2011 and buying a new machine.

"Mold ... has accumulated in the washing machine on the tub and rubber seal that cannot be removed after several attempts utilizing several products that were recommended. The end result is our laundry that has been washed-comes out with a musty odor," she said. "Not happy at all with the 'top of the line, best possible machine to produce clean laundry' as was sold to us! This has been a nightmare, and a totally dysfunctional appliance."

A group of websites and their owners are being accused of posting false information about an attorney and then offering to remove the postings for $699. The attorney charges that practice amounts to extortion and racketeering.

The lawsuit names Grambling T. Dominique Jr. a/k/a Ernest Eugene Slade, Truth in Posting LLC, Margaret Pickard and the unknown persons who operate the websites ReportYourEx.com, RemoveNames.com, RemoveMyName.com and RemoveAPosting.com, in Federal Court.

The attorney, whose identity is not being revealed, claims the defendants violated RICO laws "through a pattern of racketeering activity, including, but not limited to extortion of plaintiff by requiring payment to remove defamatory statements from the website ReportYourEx.com," Courthouse News Service reports.

The suit claims the sites "knowingly and maliciously portrayed the plaintiff in an entirely false light, as a victim of domestic violence, committing criminal acts ... and violating bar ethical rules, amongst other false allegations."

The suit says the false allegations were published on ReportYourEx.com. When she tried to have them removed, the site allegedly referred her to RemoveMyName.com and other sites that charge fees ranging from $199 to $699 to remove the false postings.

The suit accuses the sites and their operators of defamation, libel, intentional infliction of emotional distress and conspiracy to violate RICO law.

A couple whose 3-month-old daughter died in 2004 can sue the makers of a baby sling despite a statute of limitations and despite the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) finding that the death was a "freakish accident," a federal judge ruled, according to Courthouse News Service.

Ann Heneghan placed her 3-month old daughter, Cathleen Delia Ross, in the Nojo Original Baby Sling for approximately 10 to 15 minutes while shopping in October 2004. When Heneghan tried to put Cathleen back in her car seat, she noticed the child was unresponsive and called paramedics. The child was resuscitated, but eventually found to be brain dead and taken off life support.

Heneghan and her husband John Ross say they were originally told that Cathleen had died from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), and that the medical examiner never mentioned the Nojo sling as a possible cause of death.

"Asphyxia by snugli"

The death was reported to the CPSC, which investigated and called the infant's death a "terrible, freakish accident" involving SIDS and found the sling was not defective, even though the suit says an emergency room doctor called the case "asphyxia by snugli."

But the commission was later to find that similar slings had been implicated in multiple infant deaths and in March 2010, warned that parents should exercise extreme caution when using the slings and said it had learned of at least 14 deaths associated with sling-type carriers in the last 20 years.

A few days later, Infantino LLC recalled one million infant slings following reports of three infant deaths. That's when Heneghan and Ross say they first became aware that the Nojo sling might have played a role in Cathleen's death.

Though the recalled sling was a different brand, it was allegedly of the same type. The commission also emailed Heneghan with its new warning about the suffocation hazard posed by slings in the first few months of life.

According to the suit, Heneghan then contacted the medical examiner who had conducted the original investigation and discovered for the first time that her daughter's death was the result of positional asphyxiation -- not Sudden Infant Death Syndrome as she had been told previously.

No warning

The suit claims that the sling's manufacturer, Crown Crafts Infant Products, failed to warn consumers that the sling should not be used with infants under four months old because of asphyxiation dangers. Henegan later amended her suit to include Dr. William Sears. She says she bought the Nojo sling after reading about it in Sears' parenting guide, "The Baby Book."

In a motion for summary judgment, Sears and Crown Crafts said a three-year statute of limitations bars the couple's suit. But U.S. District Judge Robert Bryan denied the motion. The case is set to go to trial on June 4. 

Mary of Ellijay, Ga., thought it was a fluke when her Polaroid flat-screen TV caught fire on May 7, but a federal class action lawsuit claims that the sets have a known defect that Polaroid has failed to fix and that the company has failed to warn consumers that their TVs are a fire hazard.

The suit claims that Polaroid knew as early as 2006 that its LCD TVs fail, smoke and catch fire, but actively concealed the defects. failed to warn customers before or after the sale, failed to recall the sets and failed to amend the warranties or reimburse customers for the cost of repairing or replacing the TVs.

In the suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis, Karen Hudson of Texas County, Mo., says she bought a 40-inch Polaroid LCD TV in June 2007. Within four months, the picture went dark and Hudson was told it would cost her $300 to have it fixed.

Upon further investigation, Hudson found consumers reporting that their Polaroid sets had not only failed to work but had caught fire.

The suit cites more than 30 reviews published by ConsumerAffairs.com (out of a total of nearly 600) from consumers whose TVs stopped working, worked intermittently or caught fire.

Life span

While industry buying guides rate LCD TVs to have a life span of 100,000 hours – or about eight hours of daily viewing for 20 years – thousands of consumers are instead finding their Polaroid TVs to fail or burst into flames much earlier than that. .

While most consumers assume that flat-screen TVs are simpler and use less electricity than the much larger cathode ray tube sets they replace, the opposite is actually true. As Hudson's suit notes, LCD televisions require much more electricity and operate at much higher temperatures, thereby subjecting the circuit boards and electrical components to higher temperatures.

She charges that the Polaroid TVs have a defective design that subjects electronic components known as capacitors to excessive heat and excessive voltage, causing the capacitors to fail.

The company can't claim ignorance of the problem, Hudson charges, saying customers have been grumbling about Polaroid TVs “for years.”

The earliest negative review published by ConsumerAffairs.com came from Jill of South Euclid, Ohio, on June 5, 2006.

“Bought undercabinet tv from Radio Shack and it went out twice. Polaroid just today told me there is a defect with the product,” she said. “I was told to send them $110 for a new unit. I told [Polaroid] that is not my fault that the unit was defective and that I should not have to pay an additional $110 for an up-to-date unit.”

UL warning

The company not only failed to acknowledge the defect but falsely claimed its LCD TVs were certified by Underwriters Laboratories (UL), the suit alleges, causing UL to issue a warning in October 2010 that certain Polaroid models carried “an unauthorized UL Listing Mark.”

“The television has not been evaluated by UL to the appropriate standards for safety for the United States and Canada and is not authorized to bear the UL Mark,” the UL bulletin said.

The suit charges that Polaroid's actions violate various state consumer laws and are a breach of the express and implied warranty. It asks for an injunction, legal fees and actual and consequential damages. The action was filed by Garrett D. Blanchfield Jr., a St. Paul, Minn., attorney.

Why no recall?

Polaroid may also have some explaining to do if in fact it has failed to notify the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) about the problem.  Federal law requires manufacturers, importers, distributors, and retailers to report safety defects which "could  create a substantial risk of injury to the public or presents an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death" within 24 hours of the time they learn of the defect.

And how does a manufacturer learn of a defect? 

The CPSC has stated that “this information may be in the form of quality control data, product returns, warranty information, customer complaints, lawsuits, or any other information suggesting a product safety problem. Companies should have a system in place to make sure this kind of information is captured and channeled to responsible persons within the company so they may evaluate it and report if appropriate.” 

The agency routinely levies stiff fines against companies that fail to report defects.  In 2001, it fined Cosco/Safety 1st $1.75 million for failing to report safety defects in children's products.  In 2009, it fined Fisher-Price $2.3 million for violating the federal lead paint ban and in 2008, it fined Reebok $1 million for failing to report high lead levels in its products. 

The DirectBuy (an Authorized Partner) buying club chain has reached a preliminary settlement of a class action lawsuit that claimed the club's members were wrongfully excluded from “kickbacks” and other promotional payments allegedly made by manufacturers of products sold by the clubs.

Earlier this week, West Virginia Attorney General Darrell McGraw sued DirectBuy (an Authorized Partner), alleging it uses coercion, deception and high-pressure sales tactics to sell memberships that cost $3,995 or more.

The class action charged that members of the 145 franchised DirectBuy (an Authorized Partner) centers pay thousands of dollars to join and are promised that they will be able to buy furniture, appliances, carpeting and other products at the “direct” price – the price actually charged by the manufacturer or supplier, thus avoiding the usual retail mark-up.

But the lawsuit alleges that DirectBuy's (an Authorized Partner) promises are “false and misleading” because the company does not report the “kickbacks” – volume rebates, cooperative advertising funds and early payment discounts. The plaintiffs alleged that, therefore, they were paying more than the “direct” price they had been promised.

$6 million

In support of the plaintiffs' claims, the lawsuit says that during the fiscal year ended July 31, 2007, DirectBuy (an Authorized Partner) and its affiliates received about $8,000,000 in “kickbacks.” During the same time, it generated income of about $87 million, including $77 million from the sale of memberships and about $2 million from the financing of memberships.

DirectBuy (an Authorized Partner) denied that it had broken any laws or misrepresented its service and said it agreed to the settlement only to avoid the cost of litigation.

The settlement applies to anyone who was a DirectBuy (an Authorized Partner) member during a specific time period and to certain former members. Those who are current members will receive a 28-month DirectBuy (an Authorized Partner) membership renewal for the price of 24 months, or a 13-month renewal for the price of 12.

Former members will be eligible for a two-month free membership at their most recent membership level.

What to do

Court documents indicate that more details of the settlement will be made available at www.settlement.direct.com, although the link was not operating at the time of this writing.

Potential class members may also contact the law firm representing the plaintiffs:

Jeffrey S. Nobel

IZARD NOBEL LLP

29 South Main Street

Suite 215

West Hartford, CT 06107

(860) 493-6292

The preliminary settlement was reached before United States Magistrate William I. Garfinkel of Connecticut U.S. District Court in December 2010. It remains subject to final approval by the Court.  

District attorneys in seven Northern California counties claim that Overstock.com, the cost-conscious consumer's mecca, has been making consistently misleading claims about the discounts it offers consumers.

According to the complaint, filed on Wednesday, Overstock "routinely and systematically made untrue and misleading comparative advertising claims about the prices of its products,” conduct that the DAs say goes all the way back to 2006. "Overstock used various misleading measures to inflate the comparative prices, and thus artificially increase the discounts it claimed to be offering consumers."

The misleading statements "accompanied virtually every product listing on its site," according to the suit.

By way of example, the complaint points to a patio set that Overstock claimed had a "list price" of $999. The website offered the set for a seemingly rock-bottom $449.

But a consumer who bought the set on Overstock found a Wal-Mart sticker listing the sale price as $247 -- a full $200 cheaper than the price at which Overstock offered the set.

Overstock fires back

Mark Griffin, Overstock's vice president and general counsel, said in a statement that "no one is perfect” but also that Overstock "[does] deny the allegations and we deny the interpretations."

Griffin said that misrepresenting prices would be devastating for a company that has plenty of competition.

"The bottom line is that people shop our website in large part because of the prices we offer," he said. "So we have to be as accurate as possible because we know that our customers can easily check the prices that are available elsewhere."

As for the patio set, Griffin said it was a misunderstanding between Overstock and its vendor.

"We purchased that product from another vendor and the information we received [from that vendor] just wasn't correct," Griffin said.

Suit just before Black Friday

Overstock, headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, was launched in 1999. Its annual revenue has grown from $1.8 million that year to over $876 million in 2009. On its website, Overstock says it provides "the best value and a superior customer experience," and describes itself as "honest, helpful, efficient, accountable and trustworthy, and we are committed to profitability and service."

The suit comes at an inconvenient time for Overstock, just over a week before Black Friday, the unofficial start of the holiday shopping season and typically the busiest shopping day of the year.

The lawsuit covers consumers in the counties of Alameda, Marin, Monterey, Napa, Santa Clara, Shasta, and Sonoma. The complaint seeks $15 million in restitution and penalties.

By Jon Hood
ConsumerAffairs.com

May 19, 2010
A Washington state couple has filed a class action lawsuit against BMW, alleging that the airbags on their 2000 BMW 323i deployed without warning, causing the driver serious injuries.

According to the suit, Dori Richardson was driving the BMW on February 15 on a clear smooth roadway [with] no bumps, potholes or debris, when both driver's side airbags went off. The incident caused Richardson serious internal, orthopedic and head injuries, from which she has not fully recovered.

The suit is a fresh reminder of BMW's airbag struggles. In 2002, BMW recalled 1999 and 2000 3-Series models, warning that the side air bag system could deploy in certain non-crash impacts, such as when contacting large potholes or curbs at substantial speeds. In an attempt to remedy the defect, the 2002 recall said that dealers will recalibrate the central air bag control module to reduce the possibility of such a non-crash deployment.

In August 2008, BMW recalled 200,000 cars and SUVs for the opposite reason: the possibility that the front passenger airbags will not deploy even if a sufficiently severe accident would occur. That problem was remedied with an updated sensor in the passenger seat.

The website for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is still peppered with reports of BMWs with airbags that deployed for no apparent reason. Several of those cases are for 2000 BMW 3-series models, the same as the car at the center of the lawsuit.

ConsumerAffairs.com has also received reports from several BMW owners whose airbags have deployed without provocation.

As Charles of Bayside, NY writes:

"Drove 2003 BMW 330xi, hit pothole on left side of car, side passenger airbag shortly after suddenly deployed. Passenger burned arm through incident, top part of air bag did not even inflate but had a huge hole in fabric. White dust filled car, burned both driver and passenger eyes, and made it impossible to see. Had to quickly pull over all the way from left lane while driving blindly and eject out of car."

Jason of San Francisco had a similar experience:

"Last night I was driving home from San Jose to San Francisco when my 2005 330ci, meticulously maintained, had its drivers side, side curtain airbags deploy for no reason! I was so scared I was able to pull over right away. I got out to assess my car for damage as I didnt know what happened, it it was completely fine! I will be taking it in on Monday and BMW better be covering it, or I will file a lawsuit!"

The suit, filed in Washington Superior Court for King County, says that the problem stems from an unspecified design defect. The complaint seeks economic damages [and] general non-economic damages in [an] amount to be proved at trial.

The suit also seeks damages for loss of consortium, companionship, and service on behalf of William Richardson, Dori's husband. The suit is being handled by Paul Whelan of Seattle-based Stritmatter Kessler Whelan Coluccio.

Last month, ConsumerAffairs.com reported on a class action alleging that Bill Me Later the popular payment option found on eBay and other high-volume retail websites charges interest rates and late fees far in excess of California law.

According to the suit, Bill Me Later skirts usury laws which cap interest rates for non-bank entities at ten percent by recruiting CIT Bank as its official provider of all banking services. The plaintiffs contend that Bill Me Later in effect 'rents' CIT Bank's name and its bank charter as a scam, for the sole purpose of jacking up interest rates as high as possible.

Now eBay, which bought Bill Me Later for $945 million in 2008, has addressed the suit in its latest annual shareholder report, the required report of a public company's overall performance and prospects for the future a sort of written State of the Company address.

In the report, filed earlier this week, eBay reveals that a successful resolution of the suit could lead to changes in how the company operates, and would also threaten to increase costs or reduce revenues.

We intend to vigorously defend against these lawsuits, the filing reads. However, this and other regulatory and licensure claims could result in costly litigation and, if successful, could require us to change the way we or our users do business in ways that increase costs or reduce revenues (for example, by forcing us to prohibit listings of certain items for some locations). We could also be subject to fines or other penalties, and any of these outcomes could harm our business.

It's doubtful that eBay would scrap Bill Me Later entirely, given that it shelled out close to a billion dollars for the entity less than two years ago. The company's assertion that it could prohibit listings of certain items for some locations suggests that it might limit use of Bill Me Later to items that yield a large enough return to make it worth its while.

Given that most certified class actions end with a settlement in California, less than one percent go to trial the current suit is likely to produce a settlement of some sort, assuming that the class is certified.

Then again, it's hard to read too much into any financial filing, since they are typically painted with broad brushes that seem to take every contingency into consideration. In addition to the obvious benefits inherent in keeping shareholders well-informed, the threat of litigation helps keep companies as honest as possible. Many securities class-actions are spurred by material misrepresentations in financial filings, which means that corporations are often overly pessimistic in assessing the impact of any pending litigation.

The lawsuit, which seeks an injunction prohibiting Bill Me Later from charging more excessive fees, says that lead plaintiff Kyle Sawyer has incurred a 70% annual interest rate and that some consumers report that annual interest rate Bill Me Later charges exceed 100 percent per year.

A South Carolina couple is suing well-known "financial strategist" Loral Langemeier, claiming that the supposed financial wizard cost them well over a million dollars while lining her own pockets.

The couple, Elisabeth and Steven Lenes, sued Langemeier in federal court in South Carolina. Their complaint says that Langemeier is "the author of multiple books...in which Langemeier promotes herself as a 'master coach, financial strategist, and team-made millionaire,' as well as a 'Millionaire Maker.'" According to the complaint, Langemeier also "aggressively markets and teaches her trademarked 'Wealth Cycles,' and...claims to possess a proven 'wealth-building program.'"

The Leneses' suit claims that Langemeier charges thousands of dollars for "wealth-building and investment seminars," and then encourages students to invest in "highly risky, unproven investments from which she receive[s] undisclosed kickbacks."

The Leneses first got in touch with Langemeier after purchasing two of her textbooks at a Charleston bookstore. They contacted her to ask about a real estate investment they were considering. According to the complaint, one of Langemeier's agents told the Leneses to "hold off" on that investment, and that Langemeier could get them a better deal elsewhere.

The Leneses took that advice, and, in March 2006, shelled out $18,000 for one of Langemeier's "Big Table seminars," where they were promised "access to exclusive investment opportunities that had been thoroughly vetted and researched by Langemeier and her team."

Langemeier subsequently convinced the Leneses to exchange "lazy assets" -- such as equity in their homes -- for investments with higher returns. According to the complaint, between June 2006 and September 2008, the Leneses invested well over a million dollars in nine separate investment opportunities touted by Langemeier.

The Leneses' suit says that Langemeier "falsely represent[ed] that she was a like investor in the securities she recommended," when in fact she was receiving "kickbacks, commissions, and/or other consideration as a result of the investments [the Leneses] made." Langemeier further failed to register as an "investment advisor," even though such registration is required by law.

Further, the complaint charges that "[e]ach of the investments recommended by Langemeier was a highly risky start-up venture with no track record and with little reasonable prospects for success."

Langemeier's flashy website, LoralLangemeier.com, boasts that "Loral IS America's MONEY MAKER," and touts her as "a frequent guest on National TV and the resident 'Money Expert' on the Dr. Phil show." Another site, LiveOutLoud.com, markets Langemeier as "the Money Coach," and advertises Webinars, personal coaching, and workshops. An ad for the subtly-named Cash Machine Workshop promises that "This is not a get rich quick scheme or an MLM marketing seminar. This is a real hands on workshop lead by me (Loral) and my dream team of wealth builders, who are graduates of my most powerful and innovative year-long mentoring Program - Loral's Big Table."

The Leneses' complaint charges Langemeier with breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and misrepresentation, negligence, and breach of several South Carolina securities laws, including failing to register as an investment adviser and the unlawful sale of unregistered securities.

Langemeier responds

We received the following from Lynne Taylor, CPA, MBA:

This responds to your article of February 16, 2010 titled "Lawsuit Takes Aim at Dr. Phil's 'Resident Money Expert. I am a Certified Public Accountant licensed in the State of California. During the time period from approximately August 2007 until December 2009, Loral Langemeier engaged me as a consulting chief financial officer (CFO) to, among other tasks, travel to and investigate the principals and/or entities that made up some of the investments described in the Lenes' lawsuit: Specifically, I met with the operating directors or principals and examined the books and records of Bionovix, Inc. (Bionovix), the Z Restaurant Group of entities (ZRG) and Renaissance Laser, LLC (Renaissance). Based on my experience and a review of these records, I know the allegations that you have quoted in your article to be false for the following reasons:

1. Ms. Langemeier did not broker or sell securities related to Bionovix, ZRG or Renaissance, and did not act as an investment or financial advisor in connection with those offerings. Each of these investments was promoted by an independent party or principal of the company who was not an agent of Loral Langemeier or her Live Out Loud company, and each of the investments were offered to accredited investors per the terms and conditions described in private placement memoranda prepared by each entitys securities counsel.

2. Ms. Langemeier did not receive kickbacks, commissions, or any other form of consideration from Bionovix, ZRG or Renaissance. I have in my possession a copy of the detailed general ledgers and trial balances for Bionovix, ZRG and Renaissance and there is no evidence in any of the accounting records that Ms. Langemeier was paid any remuneration or received any income of this nature. In addition, as Ms. Langemeiers consulting CFO and tax accountant for approximately the last three years, I am thoroughly familiar with Ms. Langemeiers detailed accounting records and know she has received no income of any kind from Bionovix, ZRG and Renaissance.

3. Ms. Langemeier is an investor in Bionovix, ZRG and Renaissance, just like the Leneses.

Further, as a result of my investigations of Bionovix, ZRG and Renaissance, I prepared Executive Summaries for Ms. Langemeier which she also shared with others who had made investments in these entities. Ms. Elisabeth Lenes was one of the investors who received copies of the Summaries I prepared. In the case of the ZRG investment, Ms. Lenes called me directly after receiving the ZRG document and asked that I specifically change the language of the Executive Summary to reflect that she had not participated in promoting the ZRG investment to her friends and acquaintances in her Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina community. I included this information in the Executive Summary because Ms. Lenes did, in fact, introduce other investors residing in Mt. Pleasant to Mr. David Zebny (the principal and owner) and his Z Restaurant Group of entities. Those individuals, like Ms. Lenes and her husband, received investor K-1 tax statements for the 2008 tax year, and will receive final K-1 tax statements for the 2009 tax year.

I respectfully ask that you publish these facts as a follow-up to your original article. If you wish to discuss these matters in further detail, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Lynne Taylor, CPA, MBA

Dannon has settled a massive consumer class action alleging that ads for certain brands of its yogurt overstate their claimed health benefits. The settlement will shell out $35 million to affected consumers.

The suit alleged that ads of both Activia and DanActive yogurt exaggerated their beneficial effects on human health. The ads promote the yogurt as improving digestion and have become well known for their goofiness; a recent Activia iteration features actress Jamie Lee Curtis, seated on a couch, noting that our busy lives sometimes force us to eat the wrong things at the wrong times, and promoting Activia as the solution to digestive issues.

A voiceover in the ad claims that Activia is clinically proven to help regulate your digestive system in two weeks if eaten everyday.

The ads credit Bifidus Regularis, a Dannon-created name for bacteria found in mammals' large intestines, with Activia's positive effects on digestion.

'Bifudis Regularis'

According to the official Activia website, Dannon selected Bifidus Regularis for Activia because it survives passage through the digestive tract, arriving in the colon as a living culture, where it plays a beneficial role in your intestinal ecosystem. Whether this appetizing section of the Activia campaign will stay or go remains to be seen.

Dannon, a subsidiary of the French company Groupe Danone whose U.S. headquarters is in White Plains, N.Y., agreed to create a fund to reimburse qualified consumers, up to $100 each.

As part of the settlement, Dannon agreed to make changes to its ad campaign to bring it in line with the product's actual benefits (or lack thereof). The company also promised to make changes to the yogurt's labels and packaging.

In the settlement, which still requires final approval from an Ohio federal court, Dannon denied wrongdoing and said it was agreeing to settle only to avoid the uncertainty and expense of further litigation.

It's unclear how much of the ad content will change, or if Curtis will stay on board. As with most commercials, certain claims might be misleading but technically true; at one point, Curtis says that 87% of this country suffers from digestive issues, although this figure may include those who experience occasional heartburn or stomach aches.

A big win

The agreement is a significant victory for Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, the San Diego-based class action firm that once won a $7 billion lawsuit against Enron. The $35 million Activia settlement is the largest-ever for a suit alleging false advertising of a food product.

The firm is apparently confident in its legal strategy; it's now pushing forward with a similar suit targeting General Mills' Yoplait Yo-Plus yogurt. That item is similarly advertised as promoting good health by regulating digestive pathways. In its complaint against General Mills, Coughlin Stoia says that the company falsely claims to have clinical proof to back up its claims. That suit is being heard in Florida.

It's hard to come up with a more enticing name for a school than "Millionaire University," but in fact institution appears to serve as reminder that, if something seems too good to be true, it probably is. MU, a staple of late-night infomercials, is facing a lawsuit alleging that it scammed its "students" out of hard-earned money in a sleazy real estate scheme.

A group of dissatisfied students across the country have filed a class action lawsuit against the school, alleging that they were tricked into buying property in Florida at grossly inflated prices.

According to the complaint, Millionaire University (MU) "professors" first build trust with their students, then go in for the kill by offering "real estate investment 'opportunities.'" The suit points out that MU students are particularly vulnerable to such schemes, given their desire to invest in real estate but still-undeveloped ability to know a good deal when they see one. Students are also highly motivated to turn a quick buck; MU "real estate courses...generally cost in excess of $20,000."

MU attracts prospective students through infomercials that air across the country. In the advertisements, Russ Whitney, a supposed real estate mogul, tells how he personally made millions of dollars using the techniques taught at MU. (Whitney is the CEO of the Whitney Information Network, which provides the bulk of seminars at MU.) The infomercial then offers testimonials from alumni, who predictably testify to the wealth of information and gobs of money they now possess thanks to MU. Viewers are encouraged to show up for a free one-day seminar -- offered at locations throughout the country -- to see how they, too, can become wildly successful using MU's techniques.

At the seminar, professors follow a prepared script in advising students to increase their credit card limits and enroll in additional MU classes. Students are warned that the one-day seminar only "scratches the surface" of the tools they will need to succeed in real estate, and are encouraged to sign up for "advanced" real-estate seminars, which last three days and regularly run over $10,000. Professors also relate the value of "educational packages," which purportedly provide investment opportunities with a high rate of success; these packages can cost more than $25,000.

Students who opt for the three-day course are taken on a bus tour and shown a new house built by Gulfstream, a southwest Florida homebuilder, in a well-maintained neighborhood. They are then informed that MU has arranged for a "turnkey investment" for a similar home on a "prime lot" that "will pay back every dollar spent by the student for the intensified real estate training at MU and give them capital to jumpstart their real estate investing careers." The investment deal is billed a limited-time offer, encouraging students to jump on the bandwagon as soon as possible.

During the first year, an MU affiliate provides construction loans to finance the lot and construction of the house. The loan is refinanced once the house is fully built. Students are told not to worry, however, as two MU-affiliated realty companies will "use their expertise and 'excellent' reputation to sell the home at a substantial profit" before the student has to pay off the loan. MU professors further stress that the homes' prices are low enough that students "should consider buying at least two of them" in order to make the maximum profit.

In fact, the homes are not on prime lots -- they are constructed in "high crime, highly vandalized areas," in locations with no streets, sidewalks, or utilities, save for well water and septic tanks. According to the complaint, MU went on to fraudulently overstate the appraised value of subject properties by "thousands or tens of thousands of dollars," giving them an opportunity to make a handsome profit off the students they brainwashed and manipulated into buying the property. Furthermore, MU saturated neighborhoods with similar homes; some areas have "five or more of the same model home...in close proximity to one another," making resale even more difficult. Indeed, the complaint says that, at best, students were able to sell the homes at a "crippling loss."

The complaint, filed in a Florida federal court, charges sixteen counts, including for breach of fiduciary duties, fraud, violation of mortgage brokerage and lending laws, and violation of the state Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. In addition to MU, the suit names as defendants over a dozen affiliates that allegedly conspired with MU to perpetuate the fraud. Among those defendants are Gulfstream Development, the homebuilder; Whitney Information Network; and Paradise Title Services. In addition to damages, the plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the properties' mortgages are illegal and therefore void.

A class action lawsuit filed in federal court in Michigan claims that certain models of GE microwave ovens are prone to burst into flames without warning.

The suit alleges that the defect lies in the control panel and magnetron, which generates the actual micro waves within the oven. The suit claims that GE should have known these microwave ovens were defective since at least 2003. Although the suit doesn't give the exact model numbers of affected microwaves, 20 models in the Spacemaker or Over-the-Range lines are implicated.

At least three fires one in Michigan and two in Ohio have been reported as a result of the faulty microwaves. One of the Ohio incidents showed how unpredictable these fires can be. Ann Mau's microwave wasn't even turned on, yet it burst into flames and sent smoke billowing into the hallway. Mau was lucky she was home; as she told a local television affiliate, The firefighter told us five more minutes [and] we would have lost our whole first floor.

In a letter mailed to Cincinnati's local ABC affiliate, GE claimed that, these types of random failures are rare and do not indicate a systemic problem. It also refused to admit that the fire in Mau's house was due to a malfunction, claiming that we are also looking at other information.

GE claims that it only received 13 reports of fire or smoke last year, out of over 12 million microwaves in use. However, ConsumerAffairs.com has received at least 18 complaints regarding GE microwave fires in the past year.

Connie of Chelsea, OK writes that, The whole right inside [of my microwave] made a loud pop and caught on fire while making popcorn. Called GE and explained the situation and they were going to be more than happy to fix it but it would cost me a trip charge plus parts. I explained I was only out of warranty by 6 months. She said she was sorry but could do nothing.

Ethel of Virginia Beach, VA recalls a similar frightening experience: We smelled burning wires, turned off the circuit breaker to the house and called 911. Three fire trucks arrived to look for the cause. As it turned out the microwave was the cause.

Like Mau, some consumers experienced a fire when their microwave was sitting idle. This was the experience of Ronald of Saline, MI: The GE microwave caught on fire while NOT in use ... Smoke damage, scorched cabinets. Microwave destroyed.

The lead plaintiff in the Michigan action, Tim Hennigan, owned a GE microwave which he purchased in February 2001. In June 2008, the microwave turned itself on, and immediately began sparking and emitting smoke. The control panel failed and could not be used to turn the microwave off; Hennigan finally managed to stop the fire by shutting off power to the kitchen. As a result, the suit claims, Mr. Hennigan suffered smoke-related damage and he incurred additional replacement costs for his microwave.

Consumers who buy new houses should be especially careful, as the Spacemaker microwaves often come pre-installed over the oven. As Marney of Springdale, AR, writes, We bought this house in October and the kitchen comes with a full line of cheap GE appliances.

The suit also names as a defendant Samsung, which designed and manufactured key parts of the microwaves.

The action defines a class of all individuals who have owned a GE-brand microwave since January 2000, and alleges counts in negligence, strict liability, unjust enrichment, failure to warn, Michigan consumer laws, and breach of express and implied warranties.

The suit is being prosecuted by Hassan Zavareei of Tycko & Zavareei in Washington, D.C.

This is not the first suit alleging defects in GE microwave ovens. A suit filed by Horwitz, Horwitz & Paradis of New York claims that in certain models, the magnetron simply fails after a period of time, rendering the ovens useless.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has asked anyone with complaints to file them at www.cpsc.gov.

A California state court certified the class in a suit involving leaking windows manufactured by a subsidiary of the popular manufacturer Pella. The ruling allows the class action, which plaintiffs' counsel believes affects around 100,000 homeowners, to move forward.

The suit claims that Viking Series 3000 windows, manufactured by a Pella subsidiary, leak out of the bottom corners, substantially shortening their lifespan. The suit involves several types of windows, including horizontal sliding, vertical sliding (or "hung"), and fixed windows. The suit also includes the Viking Series 3000 sliding glass door.

In addition to the defects, the suit alleges that Viking has refused to replace the windows or otherwise remedy the problem, despite a conspicuous "lifetime warranty" label affixed to every window. On April 3, 2007, lead plaintiffs' attorney Stuart Eppsteiner of San Diego-based Eppsteiner & Fiorica, wrote Pella to demand that they replace the defective windows. He never received an answer.

An expert for the plaintiffs tested the windows and found that 61 percent leaked out of the bottom corners. The expert further found a "reasonable engineering certainty" that the other 39 percent would eventually leak during their expected useful life. This may not be surprising; judges and legal experts often dismiss expert witnesses as "worthless" since they are working for an interested party. Shockingly, however, Pella's own expert witness admitted in sworn testimony that 43 percent of the 1.2 windows sold have leaked — an astonishing figure in its own right.

Even under Pella's relatively conservative estimation, then, between 336,000 and 696,000 of the subject windows leak. Pella's refusal to provide assistance to affected consumers has led some to throw up their hands and replace the windows out of their own pockets.

The suit is brought on behalf of California homeowners who bought the windows through a retailer or as part of a new home. While the suit likely involves about 100,000 homeowners, plaintiffs' counsel currently only know the identities of several hundred. Homeowners who think they are part of the class can fill out a class member information form on the Eppsteiner firm's website.

Viking 3000 windows were manufactured between 1989 and 1999. Pella bought Viking in 1998 and subsequently renamed the subsidiary Thermastar. The relative age of the windows is more than offset by the purported "lifetime" warranty.

The windows were sold at major home improvement retailers, including Home Depot, Home Base, Lowes and Yardbirds. Home Depot, which sold about 500,000 units, is named as a codefendant in the suit.

The class was certified in a one-page minute order by Judge Holly Carter of the California Superior Court in San Joaquin County. The case is being prosecuted by Eppsteiners firm and Milstein, Adelman & Kreger in Santa Monica, CA.

In a reversal of a now-familiar pattern, a group of Chinese families is preparing to file suit against American manufacturer Johnson & Johnson, claiming that the company imported contaminated products into China, causing their children to suffer allergic symptoms.

The suit follows a report from American non-profit group Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (CFSC), which recently reported toxins in American-made bath products. The group reportedly found formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane in Johnson & Johnson's baby shampoo and Procter & Gamble's Kandoo hand wash. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lists both chemicals as possible carcinogens, and lists formaldehyde as a chemical with no safe level of exposure, meaning that even the smallest amount poses a risk to human health. Both chemicals are direct results of the manufacturing process and aren't listed on the ingredients label.

Eighty families have already organized in anticipation of the suit, and lawyers don't plan to stop there. Cui Baoyu, one of the attorneys involved, said that the group was pursuing a class action "because of the huge number of victims involved." More than 50 attorneys are already involved in the case, and Cui says that "the group continues expanding as more lawyers from all over the country ask to join every day."

The CFSC study, completed earlier this month, tested 48 products for 1,4-dioxane and formaldehyde, and found that a stunning 61% of products contained both. Since the release of the CFSC report, a major Chinese supermarket suspended sales of Johnson & Johnson products. Nonggongshan Supermarkets Corp., which owns more than 3,000 stores across eastern China, suspended sale of the products "until they are proved safe," according to quality control spokesman Gan Pingzhong. On March 16, the Vietnamese Drug Administration announced that it would begin testing Johnson & Johnson products in Vietnam.

Johnson & Johnson is not considering a recall, citing past FDA findings that formaldehyde does not pose an appreciable risk if kept at a low level. The company blamed "false suspicions" for the uproar and the resulting lawsuit.

Indeed, several authorities appear to dispute CFSC's findings. Two Chinese agencies — the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ) and the State Food and Drug Administration — tested 40 Johnson & Johnson products and found only one trace of 1,4-dioxane, and no formaldehyde.

Nonetheless, the report has gained the attention of at least three U.S. lawmakers; Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), and Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) all released statements supporting legislation to address cosmetic industry standards. There are currently no regulations governing formaldehyde or 1,4-dioxane in personal care products like shampoo and hand soap.

The push for stricter formaldehyde regulation gained support in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. After residents of FEMA-provided trailers complained of ongoing illness, tests showed increased levels of formaldehyde in the trailers' particle board. Said Becky Gillette of the Sierra Club, "We have no regulations in the U.S. to prevent this sort of thing from happening."

California has enacted more stringent formaldehyde standards, and the Sierra Club wants EPA to follow suit. If the agency did so, the rules could be implemented by 2013.

Unsurprisingly, the Formaldehyde Council, a non-profit entity representing industries who use the chemical, insists that formaldehyde is safe. The group claims that "formaldehyde is one of the most thoroughly examined substances in existence," and notes that it is a necessary building material and responsible for millions of American jobs.

The impending lawsuit has a shoe-on-the-other-foot feel to it, given that in recent years countless U.S. suits have been filed on behalf of American consumers claiming to have suffered harm from toxins in Chinese-made products, from toys to drywall.

Radio Shack and AT&T are facing a class action lawsuit alleging that they violated Oklahoma consumer protection laws by failing to adequately disclose limitations on a recent promotion.

In December, Radio Shack offered the Acer Aspire One notebook for just $99. Even with the prerequisite that customers sign up for two years of AT&T mobile broadband service for about $60 a month the deal still seemed too good to be true. As it turns out, it probably was.

Billie Parks brought suit against both companies in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, alleging that the terms and conditions of her laptop purchase failed to indicate that she would be charged exorbitant fees for exceeding a pre-set five gigabyte limit on the computers built-in wireless connection.

Parks was shocked when she received her first bill, which totaled more than $5,000. She says she was unaware that exceeding the gigabyte limit would result in any charge, let alone one more than 80 times her monthly internet fee.

The lawsuit alleges that, Although the customer service summary informed plaintiff and other consumers that their first bill might be higher than expected because of a $36 activation fee, one months service billed in advance, and prorated charges and fees for the month when the customer signed up, neither plaintiff nor other consumers were informed, nor could they have reasonable discerned from the paper work that wireless Internet usage exceeding 5GB per month would result in astronomical charges running into the thousands of dollars.

The lawsuit alleges counts under Oklahoma consumer protection statutes and common law fraud, charging that Radio Shacks advertising of the DataConnect plan was false, misleading, and inaccurate.

Parks is seeking restitution for the extra charges she incurred, consequential damages for harm to her credit rating, an injunction to prevent AT&T from enforcing the extra fees, and, most consequentially, an end to DataConnect contracts altogether.

On the go

The plan offered unique appeal for anyone constantly on the go. The Acer notebook sports a compact 8.9 inch screen and weighs less than three pounds, and sports wide-area network capabilities, a WiFi connection, and a built-in webcam . Without the AT&T plan, the computer generally sells for about $300.

The relevant AT&T terms and conditions provide that, If you are on a data plan that does not include a monthly megabyte allowance and additional data usage rates, the parties agree that AT&T has the right to impose additional charges if you use more than 5 gigabytes in a month.

The suit threatens to stymie the recent trend toward built-in wireless plans similar to DataConnect. Such arrangements have been gaining popularity in recent years, since they allow consumers to travel without having to make sure that a nearby hotel or coffee shop will be able to provide them internet access. At the very least, the suit threatens to make consumers think twice before entering into any such plan, no matter who is offering it.

And the filing doesnt exactly come at a great time for Radio Shack, which reported a 39 percent drop in earnings late last month. The company posted these dismal numbers despite a recent surge in sales of digital-box converters in anticipation of the upcoming switchover to digital TV. An analyst told the Wall Street Journal that the retailer is likely headed for its worst-ever same-store results in 2009. And now they will have a class action to contend with as well.

A Madison County, Illinois court has granted final approval of a nationwide class action lawsuit against Trilegiant Corporation, providing up to $25 million in cash benefits, along with changes in Trilegiant's business practices.

This settlement resolves nationwide litigation against Trilegiant for allegedly billing and collecting unauthorized charges from consumers for products or memberships that consumers never requested or consented to receive. It also resolves disputes over alleged refusals to cancel memberships upon consumer request.

"We believe this settlement provides substantial benefit to the class members," said Brad Lakin of The Lakin Law Firm, which filed the suit against Trilegiant in 2001.

Trilegiant, a subsidiary of Cendant Corp., has also been the target of actions by attorneys general in California, Connecticut and Florida. In 2006, it settled charges brought by 16 states alleging that Trilegiant and Chase Bank had deceived consumers into paying for membership programs.

ConsumerAffairs.com readers, like Glade of Missoula, Mont., have filed hundreds of complaints about Trilegiant and its many membership programs.

"I discovered a charge on my Chase card for $12.99 for TLG Privgrd. I call Chase and discovered that this company has charged me $470 over three years," Glade said. "Chase gave them my info when I opened my accounts and acts like it's my fault."

Under the settlement, consumers who had unsolicited or unauthorized charges for Trilegiant products posted to their credit cards or other accounts for such Trilegiant products as Privacy Guard, Credit Alert, Auto Vantage, Travelers Advantage, Buyers Advantage, Compete Home, Digital Protection Plus, Great Fun, Great Options, HealthSaver, Hotline, Just for Me, National Card Registry, NetMarket, Shoppers Advantage, Travel ER, and others, can file a claim to receive a minimum of $20 or whatever they were charged — up to three times the cost of each Trilegiant Product for which they were charged.

In addition to the cash compensation, the settlement requires Trilegiant offer consumers an easy cancellation method, affirmative relief regarding Trilegiant's business practices, a charitable contribution, and payment by Trilegiant of all costs and legal fees related to the lawsuit.

For more information or to make a claim, class members may visit www.TriSettlement.com or call 1.888.952.9102.

Sheryl Hill hugged her 16-year-old son a little tighter -- and a littler longer than usual -- shortly before he boarded a plane last summer and took off on his much anticipated People to People Student Ambassador trip to Japan.

The Mound, Minnesota, woman took a mental picture of their last moments together at the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport recalling every detail of the excitement in her son's big brown eyes, his brilliant smile, and even the burgundy polo shirt and khaki pants he wore on that June 16, 2007, day.

Sheryl and her husband had worried about sending their son, Tyler -- who had Type 1 diabetes and complex migraine headaches -- on this People to People excursion.

But the travel organization that touts its ties to President Dwight D. Eisenhower convinced her that it had a solid safety record and a 24-hour response team that could handle any medical emergency.

That promise sealed the deal. It's the reason Sheryl and Allen Hill let Tyler join his friends on the trip overseas.

Now that promise is at the heart of a wrongful death suit filed on Monday in Minnesota's Hennepin County District Court.

The lawsuit alleges the organization and its delegation leaders refused to get Tyler the medical attention he requested and that his June 29, 2007, death in Tokyo is the result of their negligence.

But thirteen days before this tragedy -- as Tyler and his friends said goodbye to their families in the states -- Sheryl's thoughts focused on how much this journey meant to her son.

"This was the most excited we'd ever seen him," she says of Tyler, a history buff who was born on the anniversary of D-Day. "He dreamed of going to Japan."

During their bittersweet farewell at the airport, Sheryl says Tyler -- who had "dominated" his diabetes since its onset at age five -- assured her that he'd be fine.

"He told me not to worry. Then he picked me up, did a backwards dip with me, and said 'I love you momI'm going to make your proud of me.'

"I told him he already had."

She then watched her son's 6'2", 215-pound frame disappear down the jetway as he embarked on his "spiritual journey" to Japan.

The next time Sheryl and her husband saw Tyler he was lying unconscious in a stark hospital room at the Japanese Red Cross Medical Center in Tokyo.

Eleven days had passed.

His eyes were now lifeless. His skin was cold. He had a respiratory tube down his throat. And IV's were sticking from his badly bruised arms.

"The most wrenching part for us was the traumatic degradation of Tyler's body at the hospital," Sheryl told us. "We sent him away as a strong, vibrant, cheerful, enthusiastic, athletic, responsible and loving teenager."

Brain dead

But less than two weeks later, Tyler was near-death in a hospital room thousands of miles away from home. The son they lovingly call "Ty man" was, in clinical terms, brain dead.

"He did not respond when I called his name," Sheryl says. "He did not squeeze my hand in return. When I lifted his eyelids, I knew he was gone. There was no light or love there.

"I kissed his lips and told that I would love him forever."

Sheryl and her husband made the difficult decision to remove Tyler from life support.

But first, they honored his wishes to be a tissue donor.

"Most of his organs were devastated," Sheryl says, "But we did donate his corneas. We (later) received very emotional letters from two recipients of Ty's corneas, one who was a renowned artist who can create again because of Ty's loving and generous decision."

It took two days for the Hill's to receive permission to disconnect Tyler's artificial life lines. On June 29, 2007, Japanese officials granted their request.

"When we went into the room to bless Ty's soul, the respirator and heart monitor resounded like an echo in a cave," Sheryl says, adding that a handful of people were with them during Tyler's final moments a Lutheran minister, Ginger Peterson with People to People, and their son's girlfriend, Abbey Nekola, who joined him on the trip.

"We walked heavy steps to Ty. Allen, Abbey, and I draped ourselves over him and surrounded him with our love and prayers. The intern removed his breathing tube with a horrific screechy sound and we cried and wailed. We said good-bye buddy, good-bye we will see you in heaven."

How could it happen?

But how could something like this happen to such an athletic teenager -- a champion at rugby, football, hockey, and scuba diving -- who never had trouble managing his diabetes?

Why didn't the Ambassadors Group and People to People honor their promise to have a 24-hour team on hand to "respond to any emergencies or situations that may arise during travel?"

And why didn't anyone with these organizations notify Sheryl or her husband that Tyler was sick before he was taken by ambulance to the hospital?

Sheryl vowed to get those answers and find out what really happened to their son during his People to People trip to Japan.

Shocking findings

The shocking findings she uncovered laid the foundation for the lawsuit her family filed yesterday against the Ambassadors Group, People to People Student Ambassador Programs, People to People International, a United Kingdom organization called docleaf Limited, two of its employees -- Larry McGonnell and Dr. David Perl -- and the four delegation leaders on Tyler's trip: Susan Stahr, Pat Veum-Smith, Josh Aberle, and Angela Hanson.

Sheryl says her family also filed its lawsuit to "protect other kids from this program by letting the public know that children are not safe during People to People trips."

Just how unsafe are these overseas trips?

In Tyler's case, Sheryl discovered that he'd become sick at least three times before he was taken to the hospital. One time, he became ill after eating bad food. He later vomited blood, fainted in the shower after an unsupervised trip to a hot springs, and his blood sugar became low.

People to People, however, never contacted Tyler's parents about these medical problems or monitored his condition.

Tyler's health took a turn for the worse on June 26, 2007 the day he and his group hiked Mount Fuji.

After that climb, Tyler asked his delegation leaders to take him to the hospital. He said he had altitude sickness.

"Ty was the catalyst and poster child for the FIT USA Foundation, a non-profit diabetes rehabilitation advocacy group," Sheryl says. "He dominated his disease and he knew if he was sick."

But according to the family's lawsuit, People to People's delegation leaders refused his request for medical treatment.

Instead, they told him to "work through it" and sent him to his hotel room with water.

The lawsuit also states that People to People again failed to contact the Hills about Tyler's illness.

Sometime around 4 a.m. on June 27, 2007, Tyler's condition deteriorated and he started vomiting blood.

Around 7 that morning, People to People's four delegation leaders learned about Tyler's failing health. But they again refused to seek any medical treatment even though he requested that attention "because he had been vomiting blood since four o'clock in the morning."

The delegation leaders also failed again to contact Tyler's parents, the suit charges.

Left alone

For the next ten hours -- from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. -- People to People's delegation leaders allegedly left Tyler alone in his room -- without any medical attention.

The suit charges that Tyler was also placed under the "custody and care" of the one person the Hills specifically requested he never be left alone with delegation leader Pat Veum-Smith.

The Hills had met Veum-Smith before Tyler's trip and expressed concerns about her abilities to care for their son.

"Pat Veum-Smith did nothing to assist him or obtain assistance for him, nor did she engage the 24-hour service center to contact Tyler's parents or medical doctors," the lawsuit states.

In fact, People to People allegedly did not seek any medical attention for Tyler until he was found unconscious in his hotel room -- sometime around 6 p.m. on June 27, 2007. That's when the delegation leaders finally called an ambulance.

A few hours later, Pat Veum-Smith notified the Hills that Tyler was in the Japanese Red Cross Medical Center. She also told them that Tyler's heart had stopped beating for more than an hour -- and was then resuscitated -- and that he was now on dialysis.

Tyler died two days later.

"My son was killed," Sheryl told us, fighting back tears. "They (People to People) killed him. This was involuntary manslaughter, neglect, and abandonment."

The lawsuit echoes her sentiments:

"Tyler's death was caused because he was refused healthcare and left unassisted by the agents, employee, and representatives of Defendants Ambassadors Group, People to People, Susan Stahr, Pat Veum-Smith, Josh Aberle, and Angela Hanson, all of whom failed to notify Tyler's parents or medical doctors of his severe illness."

The delegation's leaders, however, didn't hesitate to call Sheryl several days earlier when they caught Tyler holding hands with his girlfriend.

"Angela Hanson, one of the People to People leaders, phoned me from Japan the day after arrival with a reprimand call because Ty and Abbey were showing public displays of affection on the airplane to Tokyo," Sheryl says. "They were holding hands."

Hanson then put Tyler on the phone. The marked the last time Sheryl talked to her son.

"Ty said not to worry, that it wouldn't happen again and that I could be proud of him. I told him I already was. He told me it was great to hear my voice and that he loved me."

Sheryl will never forget Tyler's final message to her: "I love you so much too, Mom. Don't worry."

Privacy violated

The unconscionable actions of this travel organization and its agents don't stop with its failure to contact the Hills when their son became sick, the lawsuit states.

It also alleges that a European company called docleaf Limited and its employees which the Ambassadors Group hired to help the Hill's with their grieving process -- invaded the family's privacy.

How?

By "providing confidential mental health records and reports" to the Ambassadors Group and People to People, the lawsuit states.

"Larry McGonnell (an employee of docleaf Limited who claimed to be a licensed psychotherapist) flew home with us from Japan," Sheryl told us. "He was good. He helped us focus and grieve. And we told him everythinghe counseled us for two days."

Sheryl, however, says her family never gave McGonnell or docleaf permission to release their private medical and psychological records to anyone including the Ambassadors Group or People to People.

Before initiating any legal action, Sheryl says she and her husband tried to work with top officials at the non-profit organization People to People International headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri, -- and the for-profit company that markets its overseas trips to students and makes all the travel arrangements.

The company is the Ambassadors Group based in Spokane, Washington.

The Hills' requests weren't motivated by greed or money. "No amount of money will bring our son back," Sheryl says.

The Hills asked Jeffery D. Thomas, president and CEO of the publicly traded Ambassadors Group to change his company's Web site and stop bragging about its stellar safety record.

The organization's Web site touts that People to People "sets the gold standard" in travel safety.

"At People to People, the health and safety of our Student Ambassadors have always been our top priority," the Web site states. "For nearly 50 years, we've worked to make our health and safety measures as advanced and comprehensive as they can be.

Those false claims infuriated Sheryl and her husband.

"I told Jeff he can't continue to solicit students and brag about the company's safety records," Sheryl says. "I asked him to take this down (off the Web site). I also told him that he needs to change his company's safety standards. He told me that's my opinion."

Eisenhower's 'legacy'

Taking legal action against an organization that boasts about its ties to one of Tyler's heroes President Dwight D. Eisenhower also proved daunting for Sheryl and her family.

"Eisenhower was a supreme strategist who never fought on the battlefront," Sheryl says when asked why Tyler admired the former president. "Eisenhower also honored God and was responsible for putting 'In God We Trust' on our money, and the pledge of allegiance in the classroom."

She adds: "Ty was born on the anniversary of D-day. He was diagnosed with diabetes at age five. He knew he could never serve in the armed forces, but believed he could make a positive difference by modeling after 'these great men.'"

During her investigation, though, Sheryl says she made a stunning discovery: People to People was not founded by President Eisenhower.

A New York Times story dated June 10, 1958, stated the People to People Foundation was formed to "implement a 1956 proposal by President Eisenhower to promote international understanding."

That non-profit foundation, the paper wrote, was organized in 1957 and President Eisenhower served as its honorary chairman.

The 1958 Times article also stated the People to People Foundation had recently dissolved because "it had served its purpose."

ConsumerAffairs.com found records records in the Missouri Secretary of State's office that reveal a non-profit organization called People to People International -- founded to "encourage and promote in every way possible contacts between citizens of the United States and people of other lands was incorporated on October 31, 1961.

President Eisenhower's name, however, is not listed on those records, either. They list Alfred Frankfurter, Franklin Murphy, and Joyce C. Hall as the incorporators.

Sheryl says this is just another example of the ways in which People to People deceived her son and her family.

"There is so much that we have discovered about this organization since Ty's death. I think Ty would be gravely offended by these discoveries."

In a written statement, the family added: "People to People and its associated organizations target children for their own financial benefit under the false pretense of being a non-profit established by President Eisenhower.

"Students are not nominated for this 'honor' (of going on a trip), but instead are solicited through mass mailing lists."

ConsumerAffairs.com has -- over the past two years -- repeatedly exposed instances of the misleading marketing tactics People to People use to recruit students for its expensive, overseas trips.

Our stories revealed:

• The organization came under fire in 2005 by the Iowa Attorney General's office for sending a letter to a mother, which stated her son was named for a Student Ambassador trip overseas. Her son, however, had died in 1993. He was seven weeks old. Iowa officials did not take legal action against People to People. The organization later donated $5,000 to Iowa's SIDS Foundation and $20,000 to Blank Children's Hospital in Des Moines;

• The organization has twice -- in recent years -- sent recruitment letters for its overseas trips to the parents of a deceased baby girl in Florida. The couple's daughter died from multiple birth defects in 1992. She was 18 days old. People to People said it was "absolutely devastated" this happened and blamed the company that compiled its mailing lists for the errors;

• In 2006, the organization sent a recruitment letter to the parents of an Earl Gray in Arkansas. Earl Gray, however, was the couple's white, one-eyed, cat. He died ten years earlier and is buried in the family's back yard. He was 14-years- old;

• Parents across the country have filed complaints with ConsumerAffairs.com about the misleading marketing tactics People to People uses to recruit students for its trips abroad. Parents say the letters led their children to believe they were "specially chosen" or nominated for these trips. Parents later discovered the travel company obtained their child's name from a mailing list.

Back in Minnesota, Sheryl Hill hopes her family's legal action will force the Ambassadors Group and People to People to be accountable for their actions and false claims that Tyler died because he stopped taking his insulin.

She also hopes the lawsuit will bring justice and reform. One of her top goals is to ensure that safety protocols will be put in place to protect the thousands of children who participate in these student ambassador programs each year.

The family's lawsuit also seeks $6,750 in restitution for Tyler's trip, $30,000 for his funeral expenses, attorneys' fees, and damages in excess of $50,000.

No comment

ConsumerAffairs.com left messages for Jeffery Thomas with the Ambassador's Group and Mary Eisenhower, president of People to People International.

Neither returned our calls.

Meanwhile, Sheryl says she and her husband continue to grieve the loss of their oldest son an honor student at Mound Westonka High School who was known as a humble teen who made friends easily and reached out to the new kids on his team or classmates.

Their youngest son, Alec, is also struggling with the loss of his older brother.

"Ty was very easy to talk to," Sheryl says. "He and his brother built a special 'fort' he and Alec could spend hours down there talking about whatever brothers talk about."

She adds: "When a child dies, all these connections to "his community" die too. You miss his friends, his school, his teachers, and you especially miss "him."

When asked what she wants people to remember about her son, Sheryl says: "Ty was recognized at Mound Westonka High School last year for singularly reporting a bomb threat that others were to afraid to bring forward. Ty always made the right choices even though they weren't the popular choices. He will be remembered as the kid who knew how to love.

"You should be proud that he wanted to represent America in Japan. We are."

More about People to People

When consumers think of class actions, they often picture a personal injury case involving serious injury or death, as in the cases being brought against Merck, the manufacturer of the painkiller Vioxx.

But you don't necessarily need a life-and-death-issue. Sometimes poor snacking habits will do. There's currently a guacamole class action being whipped up in California -- that's right, the avocado dip. A Los Angeles consumer attorney is assembling a class of plaintiffs commonly wronged by buying "guacamole" dips containing mostly lemon juice, tomatoes and spices.

If you're a qualified snacker who bought the right dip from household giants like Kraft or Marzetti's, you can dip a chip into this green fraud perpetrated on unsuspecting munchers.

Fortunately, most class actions fall somewhere between grievous injury and unsatisfying snacking. Typical class actions address many injustices: securities fraud, consumer fraud, human and civil rights violations, employee benefits disputes, and so-called "mass torts" -- highly-publicized cases involving oil spills or defective drugs/medical devices.

An ideal example of a consumer class action is the Martha Stewart glass-top patio tables case now working its way through the courts. There is a significant economic injury -- the tables cost hundreds fo dollars, but it's not really enough to justify a lengthy and expensive lawsuit by each individual consumer.

"In addition to the damage already done to thousands of consumers, there is an on-going risk of injury -- the tables are still being sold -- that mandates that something be done, and not on a small scale," said attorney Richard Doherty, who is representing purchasers of the tables.

Another "ideal" class action was last year's case in New Jersey that resulted in a settlement for consumers who bought or leased a new or used vehicle from one of more than 397 dealerships in the preceding eight years. They would eligible for a $100 discount on the purchase or lease of a new or used vehicle. Some class members could receive higher refunds and a discount on parts and service. Not all that dramatic, but not chicken feed either.

The Basics

To qualify as a class action, a lawsuit must affect a broad class of individuals, all similarly harmed by the defendant's action or inaction. This is important: it can't just be a bunch of consumers with a collection of grievances against a single company.

The court will appoint a "lead plaintiff" to represent the class. This person is basically the canary in a cage, someone who serves as an example to illustrate how all the class members were harmed.

Many cases are brought in Federal Court under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For this to happen, either

1) a claim must arise under federal law ("federal question") or
2) the plaintiff and defendant must be from different states ("diversity.")

They may also be brought in state courts. The conventional wisdom is that federal courts favor defendants and state courts plaintiffs, although there are exceptions.

Before a suit can go forward in either court, a judge must "certify" the class as having enough in common to proceed against a defendant. The defendant, naturally, will argue against certification. Class members get the chance to "opt out" of the class before litigation begins and pursue individual relief instead.

Some things the court looks at in deciding whether or not a class action is appropriate include

1) whether individual lawsuits are impractical due to the number of potential plaintiffs;
2) whether the plaintiffs have enough legal or factual claims in common to truly be a class;
3) whether the lawyers representing the plaintiffs are up to the task of a complex lawsuit requiring time and lots of paper.

The Ideal

What are some "ideal circumstances"in which a class action is a good fit?

• Individual claims are too small to justify a separate lawsuit. For example, say I buy a digital camera whose memory card continually fails. The camera cost $499 -- about 2 to 3 hours of a lawyer's time, unless I want to battle it out in small claims court myself. But if 250,000 -- plaintiffs have the same memory card problem, we're much more likely to get action from the camera company through the class action process. A similar case against Canon is now working its way through the courts.

• Class action lawsuits are a practical way to combine a lot of small wrongs into one more high-powered lawsuit -- like Girls Gone Wild voyeurs who claim they were overcharged for their role in exploiting young women. In essence, a class action allows the case to be tried once rather than numerous times. This is especially important because of time and money considerations -- expert witnesses, depositions, legal briefs, etc. This is one reason big companies usually prefer to fight it out one case at a time: they can outspend and outlast a ragtag band of individuals.

Types of Relief

The one thing a class action won't do is put anyone in jail. It's strictly a civil affair, which means the "relief" granted by the court is most likely to fall into one (or more) of three categories:

• Compensatory damages -- money, in other words. The amount is determined by the damages plaintiffs have suffered.

• Injunction -- a court order forcing the defendant to stop doing whatever it was that harmed the plaintiffs -- dumping chemicals into a nearby river, for example.

• Declaratory judgment -- the judge throws up his or her hands (often literally) and rules from the bench that one side or the other is so obviously right that there is no need to argue further.

Objection!

To put it mildly, there are those who think class actions are a despicable distortion of the legal process. Their objections include:

• Legal fees -- typically 20% of the award -- eat up a lot of the settlement.

• Small damage recovery for plaintiffs, "coupon settlements" for example. The Blockbuster case is a fairly notorious case in point, as is a recent Netflix settlement.

• Lawyers don't work too hard -- there's often little or no discovery involved.

• Lawyers settle for low-ball settlements.

To overcome some of these objections, and to keep its corporate sponsors fed and watered, Congress passed the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, which is supposedly the "first step" in President Bush's promise to reform tort law. Of course, tort law has been evolving for centuries, so eight years may not be long enough to put much of a dent into it.

One goal was to remove class action lawsuits from jurisdictions historically known for granting large judgments for plaintiffs, such as Madison County, Illinois, the "judicial sinkhole" infamous for granting huge awards in cases that might generously be described as marginal. It does this by giving federal courts sole jurisdiction over class actions which involve amounts over $5 million, or actions in which any plaintiff is from a different state than any defendant.

In other words, if fewer than 66% of class members are residents of a foreign state and no significant defendants are citizens of the state in which the action was brought, there's sufficient "diversity" for removal to federal court. As a result, many cases now heard in state court will be transferred to federal.

Of course, plaintiff's attorneys are almost exclusively Democrats -- like, oh, John Edwards -- while corporate attorneys, like their masters, are almost exclusively Republican but Congress would never stoop to any such simplistic motive as impoverishing the wealthy trial lawyers who are big donors to Democratic candidates, now would it?

All this is potentially bad news for plaintiffs, as federal courts are known for being more reluctant to certify a class and more likely to reject class action settlements.

Theoretically, a group of plaintiffs could get through the preliminary stages of a trial and work their way to a proposed settlement, only to have a judge scuttle the deal. Also, transferring more cases to federal courts will likely clog already full dockets and cause longer trial delays.

It's also possible for the defendant to stage a last-minute end run around class action plaintiffs, as Ford did in 1999 when it derailed a class action suit over defective Windstar engines. The company issued extended warranties to some of the plaintiffs and convinced a judge to dismiss the suit, leaving other plaintiffs past and future out of luck.

What's A Consumer To Do?

Consumers are constantly writing to ConsumerAffairs.com, wanting us to put them in touch with others who bought a bum lawn mower, lousy lipstick or rotten cheeseburger. "Then we can all get together and file a class action lawsuit," they exclaim.

Well, maybe, but in practice it doesn't work that way. Rather than searching for other plaintiffs, an aggrieved party who has reason to think his or her slight is a common one is better off contacting an experienced, successful plaintiff's attorney whose practice consists largely of class actions.

The attorney will evaluate the case -- and the plaintiff -- and decide whether or not to go forward. Something plaintiffs often don't realize is that the attorney is the one taking the risk, since if the case is not successful the lawyer doesn't get paid.

Prosecuting a major case can take years and literally cost a firm millions of dollars. The big fees are the ones you hear about; you don't hear about the law firms that have gone into bankruptcy or simply dissolved after a few unsuccessful cases.

So what's the best way for you to settle your grievance?

The first question is whether there was grievous personal injury or death resulting from the defective product or the actions of others. If the answer is yes, then you should consult the best-known, most ambitious and most highly regarded trial attorney in your area. If you find the right attorney, she or he will take your case on contingency (the lawyer gets a percentage of the settlement but you pay nothing if the case fails).

If no one was killed or injured (we don't mean to sound crass but this is a real-world discussion we're having) and the damages were in the few-thousand-dollar range, you are almost always better off going to small claims court. You do not need a lawyer, the company you are suing will very possibly not even appear to defend themselves and you have a good chance of winning, assuming you have a good case. See our state-by-state guide for more information.

Before rushing off to court, ask yourself if your loss might be covered by insurance. If your microwave oven started a small fire in your kitchen, your homeowner's policy will probably cover most of it. Yes, of course, you want "justice." We all do, but filing an insurance claim is a lot easier than fighting it out in court. Remember, if you have a loss that is not covered by insurance, including any deductible, you can probably take a "casualty loss" deduction on your next income tax return. Ask your accountant.

If none of these options will work, a class action may be for you. The simplest first step is to file a review with ConsumerAffairs.com. Experienced class action attorneys review every issue and hundreds of cases have been filed as a result. This costs you nothing and exposes your potential claim to attorneys who are looking for a good fight.

What else can you do? Possibilities include:

• Consult local attorneys with class action experience. The truth, however, is that most successful class actions are filed by a handful of big firms with vast experience. It is difficult for a local firm to effectively take on major corporations.

• Scour the Web for news stories about successful class actions. Contact the David who slew Goliath.

• Nobody likes advertisements but they can sometimes be helpful. Most consumer sites, including this one, are crawling with ads placed by class action lawyers looking for business. It can't hurt to check them out but don't do business with anyone who wants money upfront or wants you to divulge personal information (like checking account numbers) on the first call.

But remember -- in a class action, you are just another plaintiff, most likely one of thousands. You won't get any special payoffs for your trouble. You're potentially doing a big favor for your fellow plaintiffs but it would be, ahem, unethical and illegal for anyone to cross your palm with any special payments for so doing. The term for this is "kickback," not a pretty sight.

"Joining" a Class Action

Consumers often ask how they can "join" a class action. As explained above, the first thing that needs to happen before a class action can proceed is that a court has to "certify" the class after determining that the case has too many plaintiffs to be named individually.

After certification, notices are sent to potential class members, whose names are gathered from whatever source is appropriate in a particular case: product registration information, pharmacy patient information, records of car sales, reviews filed with ConsumerAffairs.com, etc.

If a class member is notified and wants to join the case, he or she just returns the notice. So you don't really "join" a class action lawsuit; if you qualify as a plaintiff, you are automatically included, assuming you have been identified through one of the methods mentioned above, unless you "opt out."

Some people don't want to be included in class actions. If you decide that you'd rather pursue justice on your own or if you think -- as many apparently do -- that consumers should not defend their rights, you simply opt out of the class, removing your name from the list of plaintiffs. If you fail to opt out, you could be bound by the results of the class action suit -- meaning that you would not be able to pursue an individual action against the company.

So, are consumer class actions guaranteed to deliver the pound of flesh you want and deserve? Obviously not, but in an era when individual rights are being extinguished by a lobbyist-driven Congress and White House, they're one of the few arrows in the quiver. Breathe deeply, aim straight and you may just hit the target.

Learn More

On the Web ...

• law.freeadvice.com

• classaction.findlaw.com

In print ...

• "A Civil Action" by Jonathan Harr (Vintage, 1996) -- $14.95. A classic, it showcases the lawsuit and discovery abuses of large corporations that place economic interests above those of individuals, and shows what is oftentimes the futility of litigating against deeply entrenched, well-financed corporations that can afford to wage a war of attrition.

• "Class Action: The Story of Lois Jenson and the Landmark Case that Changed Sexual Harassment Law" by Clara Bingham & Laura Leedy Lansler (Anchor, 2003) -- $15.00

---

Joan E. Lisante is an attorney who writes frequently on consumer issues.