Archive for the 'Consumer Protection' Category
October 23rd, 2011 by Admin
Well if you are interested in the world of class action lawsuits you may be delighted to learn about the fruit roll-ups class action announced this week. General Mills is apparently facing a lawsuit over the marketing of its fruit snack. They are a fun snack for kids but nobody ever considered these sugary treats to be healthy. General Mills apparently tried to catch some people unawares when they began putting healthy-ish messages on the packaging of their notoriously fun fruit snack. Turns out they should have left well enough alone on the popular snack that’s been around for decades because that is precisely what prompted the fruit roll-ups class action.
With words like “naturally flavored,” or “a good source of Vitamin C” and also “low fat”. Well yes they are low fat but so is a spoonful of pure sugar! And you can pump artificial vitamins into any food. The fruit roll-ups class action alleges that General Mills is implying that the fruit roll-ups are healthier snacks and therefore should cost more. A consumer protection agency found that the General Mills product actually contained high fructose corn syrup and trans fats, according to details of the fruit roll-ups class action.
August 27th, 2011 by Admin
Sirius XM was named in a class action lawsuit in 2009 and the case is still pending in federal courts. A major step forward was announced this week, as court approval was granted for a settlement with subscribers.
The satellite radio giant bought its only competitor, XM Satellite Radio, back in 2008. The Sirius XM class action lawsuit alleges antitrust violations because after the acquisition, the company raised its prices. Not only did it raise prices after elimination competition, it also raised music royalty fees.
The Sirius XM class action lawsuit also stated that the company broke promises it made. The promises were made in order to gain approval for the merger with XM Satellite Radio. Approval for mergers and acquisitions must be obtained from the U.S. Federal Communications Commission and the Justice Department.
Sirius XM claims that they raised prices after the merger because their costs were higher. Class action status was granted to the antitrust portion of the lawsuit. That was in March of this year. A settlement was reached before trial and preliminary approval for that settlement was given in May 2011.
Class action lawsuits that go into settlement before trial must also get approval for the settlement so that both sides are satisfied.
March 19th, 2011 by Admin
The AT&T phantom data lawsuit filed last month in California is still pending this month. The class action lawsuit is awaiting a decision by the Supreme Court on another AT&T class action lawsuit. The current phantom data charges lawsuit is on hold until the Supreme Court can make a decision on the other lawsuit, which is also between AT&T’s wireless division and a wireless customer.
In the previous AT&T class action, a California couple charges AT&T with violating California’s consumer protection laws. There were allegedly charged around $30 for a phone they believed to be free. The class action was filed in 2006 and is now before the Supreme Court, awaiting a decision.
There is a clause in all wireless contracts with AT&T stating that customers cannot participate in class action lawsuits against the company. Matters are to be settled out of court, and individually, which is of course a cheaper alternative for the giant communications company. The Supreme Court, however, has deemed this clause as unconscionable. That means the clause is so unfair it’s not even enforceable.
AT&T lawyers are fighting back, stating that there are Federal laws that actually encourage arbitration agreements, and that these laws pre-empt state laws that allow consumers to bring class action lawsuits. States like California argue that arbitration agreement clauses like AT&T’s essentially leave the public no recourse when a company has caused them injury.
So, the AT&T phantom data lawsuit will have to wait until the Supreme Court decides whether an AT&T class action can even occur.
December 18th, 2010 by Admin
It’s not the hot coffee this time. Years ago McDonald’s was the target of a now famous class action lawsuit over very hot coffee that spilled on a customer’s hand. She won that one and was awarded millions of dollars. Now, decades later, a Sacramento, California mother has brought legal action against the fast food giant, in what she and her lawyers hope will be a McDonald’s class action.
The case involves Happy Meals, boxed meals for kids that feature a toy inside. They typically contain a burger, fries, and soda plus the toy. The McDonald’s class action lawsuit alleges that the company uses the toys to lure kids to want the Happy Meal, which contains unhealthful food. The mother claims that McDonald’s makes it difficult to say “no” to her children, when they beg for Happy Meals with toys in them and end up eating food she wants them to avoid.
But others disagree. Sarah Palin, for one, has the opinion that it’s the parents who should be making the food choices, not the government. However, the State of California has a strong record of passing legislation that regulates unhealthful food. This proposed McDonald’s class action lawsuit comes just one month after the City of San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors voted to pass legislation limiting toy giveaways in food that contains excess amounts of calories, fat or salt.
The McDonald’s lawsuit was filed on behalf of the Sacraments mom by the Center for Science in the Public Interest. When this organization contacted McDonald’s for a statement, the fast food giant countered that they help parents make good nutritional choices by posting nutritional content in their restaurants and by offering more Happy Meal choices than ever before. The Center for Science in the Public Interest responded by claiming that that typically what happens is that McDonald’s employees fill the Happy Meals with fries and sugary sodas rather than the Apple Dippers and low fat milk that’s featured on Happy Meal advertisements.
December 13th, 2010 by Admin
In the first lawsuit to target what’s known as history sniffing, two California women are suing YouPorn for violation of cyber-crime and consumer protection laws. History Sniffing is a method used by website administrators for logging what other websites their visitors have been to, and also sniffs out their personal information. It’s a violation of privacy, and it’s illegal. The Youporn lawsuit may become a class action, since lawyers and plaintiffs in the suit are seeking class action status.
There’s no limit to what malicious harvesters of the history sniffing data can do with the information, but one obvious use would be for marketing or research. A University of California study served as the impetus for this history sniffing class ation, when it published a list of 46 websites that used history sniffing. The websites mentioned in the report cover a wide range of types, from sports sites to investing websites.
History sniffing is the newest form of internet invasion of privacy. Previously, cookies were used by such websites to collect user data from their visitors. Now, the technology has gone beyond cookies to take advantage of other browser vulnerabilities. History sniffing works based on the idea that browsers display links in different colors depending on whether a person has visited that link before. The simple difference between a blue and a purple link allows history sniffers to make a list of websites you’ve visited before, and to create a profile for you and for anyone else who’s visited their site.
The two plaintiffs are from California and the YouPorn lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Central California district. Lawyers are seeking class action status. Other history sniffing class action participants may come forward in the future, since the technology was also used on such major websites as Morningstar (an investor site) and ESPNF1, and car-racing website.
