|
Wednesday, 16 May 2012 15:28 |
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook for the latest Class Action Settlement News! Skechers Toning Shoe Class Action Lawsuit Settlement By Matt O'Donnell
 The Federal Trade Commission has just announced that Skechers will pay $40 million to settle charges it misled consumers into believing its “toning shoes” would help people lose weight and tone their buttocks, legs and abdominal muscles, without ever setting foot in the gym. If you bought Skechers Shape-ups, Resistant Runners, Shape-ups toners/Trainers or Tone-ups since August 1, 2008, you can file a claim to receive a refund either directly from the FTC or through a court-approved class action lawsuit settlement. The Skechers settlement will resolve a class action lawsuit, entitled Grabowski v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., that alleges Skechers violated state laws and consumer protection statutes by misrepresenting the benefits of wearing Skechers toning shoes, and that the shoes did not provide the benefits claimed. “Skechers’ unfounded claims went beyond stronger and more toned muscles. The company even made claims about weight loss and cardiovascular health,” said David Vladeck, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The FTC’s message, for Skechers and other national advertisers, is to shape up your substantiation or tone down your claims.” Skechers denies any wrongdoing, but has agreed to establish a $40 million class action lawsuit settlement fund to resolve the litigation. The announcement comes just two months after the FTC announced its investigation into the alleged false claims, and eight months after Reebok settled similar FTC charges for $25 million. The Skechers class action lawsuit settlement is reportedly the FTC’s largest ever involving consumer refunds, and is larger than the Reebok settlement, in part, because Skechers has more market share in toning sneakers. Under the FTC’s toning shoe settlement, Skechers is barred from making claims about strengthening, weight loss, and other health and fitness-related claims for its toning shoes unless they are true and backed by scientific evidence. The Skechers class action settlement also bars the company from misrepresenting any tests, studies or research results regarding toning shoes. Skechers has also agreed to provide refunds to consumers who bought the following Eligible Shoes as new since August 1, 2008: Skechers Shape-ups rocker bottom shoes Skechers Resistance Runner rocker bottom shoes Skechers Shape-ups Toners/Trainers Skechers Tone-ups with podded outsoles Skechers Tone-ups non-podded sandals Skechers boots Skechers clogs Skechers trainers (Tone-ups, non-podded sole) The total refund you can receive from the Skechers shape-ups class action lawsuit settlement will depend on how many Eligible Shoes you purchased since August 1, 2008, as well as the total number of valid claim forms submitted by other Class Members. However, it’s estimated that Class Members will receive between: $40 - $80 for Shape-ups; $27 - $50 for podded sole shoes; $20 - $40 for Tone-ups (non-podded sole); and $42 - $80 for Resistance Runners To apply for a refund from the Skechers class action settlement, you must submit a claim form online at www.SkechersSettlement.com Further details on your rights in the Skechers Class Action Lawsuit Settlement can also be found at www.SkechersSettlement.com.
Updated May 16th, 2012 All class action and lawsuit news updates are listed in the Lawsuit News section of Top Class Actions ©2008 - 2012 Top Class Actions® LLC Various Trademarks held by their respective owners. |
|
Wednesday, 16 May 2012 13:45 |
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook for the latest Pradaxa Class Action Lawsuit & Settlement News! Pradaxa Internal Bleeding and Hemorrhage Lawsuit Update
By Scott Hardy
 Pradaxa internal bleeding and hemorrhage lawsuits have almost doubled in federal court. Eight new Pradaxa lawsuits have been filed alleging that Boehringer Ingelheim should have known about the risks of internal bleeding that can't be stopped until Pradaxa is completely flushed from the patient's system. With the eight new Pradaxa hemorrhage lawsuits the number of Pradaxa cases in federal court jumps up to eighteen. The eighteen Pradaxa lawsuits does not include any Pradaxa class action lawsuits or Pradaxa hemorrhage lawsuits filed in state courts. It only includes Pradaxa internal bleeding lawsuits filed in federal courts. Internal bleeding is a known serious and severe side effect of Pradaxa. Internal bleeding and Hemorrhage Pradaxa lawsuits are gaining momentum as more a filed across the country alleging that patients should have been warned of the risk of taking Pradaxa prior to being hospitalized, or in some cases dying, while taking Pradaxa. Wrongful death lawsuits have already been filed against Boehringer Ingelheim alleging that they were aware of the risks of internal bleeding and death from taking Pradaxa but haven't done enough to warn patients taking the drug. Many Pradaxa internal bleeding or hemorrhage lawsuits state that Boehringer Ingelheim "did not adequately inform consumers and the prescribing medical community about the risks of uncontrollable bleeds associated with Pradaxa usage, nor did [Boehringer] warn or otherwise advise on how to intervene and stabilize a patient should a bleed occur." As we mentioned earlier the only way to medically control internal bleeding via medication is to flush the patient's system of Pradaxa. This is done via dialysis and could take hours. During that time the patient may bleed out or require multiple blood transfusions. It's important to know if you're possibly experiencing internal bleeding. Pradaxa users may be experiencing internal bleeding if they have pink or brown urine, red or black stools, bruises that happen without a known cause and may get larger, if they are coughing up blood or blood clots and/or vomiting blood or their vomit includes particles that look like coffee grounds. If you or a family member are taking, or were taking Pradaxa or a blood thinner medication, and experienced internal bleeding or hemorrhage you may be able to file a lawsuit to help you pay for your expenses, pain and suffering, and recovery. If you would like more information about filing a Pradaxa internal bleeding class action lawsuit, would like to speak with experienced Pradaxa lawyers who are actively filing internal bleeding cases, or would like to file a Pradaxa internal bleeding lawsuit just go to the Pradaxa Internal Bleeding Class Action Lawsuit Investigation page. Pradaxa attorneys are actively investigating all claims regarding internal bleeding, hemorrhage and other problems which may have been caused by Pradaxa or warfarin. Remember, the Pradaxa lawyers who work with Top Class Actions will tell you if you have a case for free. There's never any charge for an initial consultation with an attorney you find through Top Class Actions. Updated May 16th, 2012 All medical device, dangerous drug and medical class action and lawsuit news updates are listed in the Drug and Medical Device section of Top Class Actions. ©2008 - 2012 Top Class Actions® LLC Various Trademarks held by their respective owners. |
|
Wednesday, 16 May 2012 13:02 |
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook for the latest Zoloft Birth Defect Class Action Lawsuit & Settlement News! Zoloft Causes Club Feet Birth Defect Alleges Lawsuit By Scott Hardy
 A new Zoloft birth defect lawsuit alleges that the antidepressant drug can cause babies to born with club feet. Tylanda Kidd filed one of the latest Zoloft lawsuits after she found out that Zoloft may be the cause of her son's birth defects. Tylanda had her son in 2007 and he was born with birth defects, one of which was club feet. Club feet is just one of the multitude of birth defects that Zoloft can allegedly cause. Zoloft and other antidepressant medication used while pregnant may also be responsible for other birth defects like Persistent Pulmonary Hypertension (PPHN), Atrial Septal Defects (ASD), ventricular septal defects (VSD), abdominal birth defects (omphalocele), cranial birth defects (craniosynotosis), aorta coarctation, hypoplastic right or left heart syndrome, transposition of the great arteries (TGA), tetralogy of fallot (TOF), spina bifida and club feet. Tylanda worked with her doctors to try to fix her son's club feet without surgery using casts but was unsuccessful. In 2007, when Tylanda's son was only nine months old, he underwent surgery to fix his club feet. The boy is now five years old and Tylanda's Zoloft attorneys state that he "continues to suffer physically and emotionally" from the Zoloft birth defect. Mothers around the world who took Zoloft while pregnant may not just experience a congenital birth defect like club feet. Many mothers who took Zoloft or another antidepressant while pregnant have had babies with Persistent Pulmonary Hypertension (PPHN), a low birth weight, still birth or their babies were born with other severe congenital birth defects. It's important that mothers who have had a child with a birth defect work with an attorney to determine if they have cause to file a lawsuit to help pay for medical treatment and pain and suffering. Birth defects may be caused by many different medications (not just SSRI antidepressant drugs like Zoloft) and only an attorney and your doctor can determine if one of the medications taken during pregnancy may be responsible for the birth defect. Tylanda's lawsuit also alleges that Pfizer knew of the possibility of birth defects if Zoloft is taken while pregnant but did nothing to warn doctors or patients of the possibility. The Zoloft lawsuit states that before Zoloft was approved by the FDA in 1991 Pfizer conducted animal trials which found that Zoloft caused severe side effects in animal fetuses. Even though Pfizer knew of this risk the Zoloft lawsuit alleges they did nothing to warn doctors and patients of the risk of birth defects if Zoloft is taken while pregnant. Tylanda didn't file a Zoloft class action lawsuit. In Tylanda's case it was determined that an individual action may get her and her son the highest financial award if she wins or the Zoloft birth defect lawsuit settles with Pfizer. Filing a Zoloft class action lawsuit may not be in the best interest of everyone. It's important that those affected by Zoloft side effects speak with a qualified Zoloft attorney to determine their best course of action which may be filing an individual lawsuit against Pfizer. If your baby was born with a birth defect and you were taking Zoloft, another antidepressant SSRI drug like Paxil, or other medication, you should speak with an experienced Zoloft attorney. If you would like more information about filing a Zoloft birth defect class action lawsuit, would like to contact a Zoloft birth defect attorney, or would like to file an individual Zoloft birth defect lawsuit just go to the Zoloft Birth Defect Class Action Lawsuit Investigation page. You can submit your information to attorneys who specialize in Zoloft related birth defect lawsuits, and other SSRI antidepressant drug birth defect lawsuits, that are actively investigating all claims regarding birth defects like Persistent Pulmonary Hypertension (PPHN), Atrial Septal Defects (ASD), ventricular septal defects (VSD), abdominal birth defects (omphalocele), cranial birth defects (craniosynotosis), aorta coarctation, hypoplastic right or left heart syndrome, transposition of the great arteries (TGA), tetralogy of fallot (TOF), spina bifida, Autism, club feet and other problems which may be attributed to Zoloft or another anti-depressant (SSRI) drug taken while pregnant. It's Pfizer's responsibility to properly warn users of their drugs of the possibility of severe birth defects and if you don't feel you were warned of the risk a birth defect attorney may be able to help. Updated May 16th, 2012 All medical device, dangerous drug and medical class action and lawsuit news updates are listed in the Drug and Medical Device section of Top Class Actions. ©2008 - 2012 Top Class Actions® LLC Various Trademarks held by their respective owners. |
|
Thursday, 17 May 2012 00:00 |
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook for the latest Class Action Settlement News! Avis Rent A Car Toll Device Fee Class Action Lawsuit
By Kimberly Mirando
 A New York resident has filed a class action lawsuit against Avis Rent A Car, claiming the company does not disclose in the rental agreement that customers will be assessed a fee for using an E-ZPass electronic toll device. Plaintiff Jodd Readick alleges in the Avis class action lawsuit that he was charged a "convenience fee" for using an electronic toll device, despite the fee not being disclosed in the rental agreement or during the rental process. The only place Avis alludes to a fee is a fine-print mention that customers are responsible for "all tolls incurred during your rental period and all related fees, charges and penalties." "Even if deemed to have knowledge of this section (after agreeing to so many specific fees in other documents), the language is deliberately ambiguous. A reasonable person could easily conclude that the 'related fees, charges and penalties' are based on the actual costs of the device, which could mean the actual tolls and other charges for the proper (or improper) use of the device (e.g., backing up in the toll lane or some other fineable behavior," the class action lawsuit says. Specific charges related to the rental of the electronic toll device are not mentioned anywhere in the contract. "Had [Avis] wanted to clearly let people know that there was an additional rental cost to using the ETD [Electronic Toll Device], they could have easily done so," the class action lawsuit claims. Readick is seeking damages for a proposed class of all New York residents charged a "convenience fee" for Avis Rent A Car's electronic toll collection device, called E-ZPass, provided in certain rental cars. A copy of the Avis E-ZPass Fee Class Action Lawsuit can be read here. The case is Jodd Readick v. Avis Budget Group, Inc. and Avis Rent A Car System, LLC, Case No. 651517/2012, Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York.
Updated May 17th, 2012 All class action and lawsuit news updates are listed in the Lawsuit News section of Top Class Actions ©2008 - 2012 Top Class Actions® LLC Various Trademarks held by their respective owners. |
|
Thursday, 17 May 2012 00:00 |
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook for the latest Class Action Settlement News! Consumer e-Book Price-Fixing Class Action Moves Forward
By Sarah Pierce
 A federal judge has ruled in favor of e-book consumers by refusing to dismiss a class action lawsuit accusing Apple and the nation's largest book publishers of conspiring to illegally fix the prices of digital books. U.S. District Judge Denise Cote denied court petitions by the Defendants to dismiss the e-book price-fixing case, allowing the class action lawsuit to move forward. The case was originally filed in August 2011, and seeks to represent e-book purchasers whom the class action lawsuit says were forced to pay tens of millions of dollars more for electronic books because of the alleged price-fixing scheme organized by Apple, Hachette, HarperCollins, Macmillan, Penguin and Simon & Schuster. The U.S. Justice Department last month sued Apple and the publishers, making very similar allegations to the consumer class action lawsuit and citing much of the same evidence. The DOJ accused the companies of actively conspiring to monopolize the e-book market in order to push Amazon's Kindle e-reader out, while driving up prices for consumers. "We litigated this case because we strongly believe that consumers were harmed by Apple and the publishers' tactics and we will not settle without an effective plan to repay consumers for their losses," the Plaintiffs' attorney said in a statement. "Rather than compete on merit, price and convenience, we intend to prove that the cabal simply tried to game the system." The e-book antitrust class action lawsuit is seeking to compensate e-book purchasers for losses incurred as a result of the alleged price-fixing scheme. The case is In re: Electronic Books Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 11-md-02293, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York.
Updated May 17th, 2012 All class action and lawsuit news updates are listed in the Lawsuit News section of Top Class Actions ©2008 - 2012 Top Class Actions® LLC Various Trademarks held by their respective owners. |
|
Wednesday, 16 May 2012 00:00 |
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook for the latest Class Action Settlement News! Tetley Tea False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit By Mike Holter  A federal class action lawsuit claims Tetley USA, Inc. falsely advertises the health benefits of its tea products, specifically that they are an "excellent" or "natural" source of antioxidants. According to the Tetley Tea class action lawsuit, "Tetley utilizes improper antioxidant, nutrient content, and health claims that have been expressly condemned by the FDA in numerous enforcement actions and warning letters" to other companies that made similar antioxidant claims, such as Unilever's Lipton Tea. Claims that a tea or food product is "an excellent source of natural antioxidants" or a "natural source of antioxidants," as Tetley Tea products do, have been repeatedly targeted by the FDA as unlawful, the class action lawsuit says. The Tetley Tea class action lawsuit is brought on behalf of all California consumers who purchased Tetley Tea's Classic Blend Black Tea, British Blend Black Tea, Pure Green Tea, Iced Tea Blend Tea, and/or Iced Tea Mix Tea within the last four years. It is seeking damages, restitution and more for alleged claims of unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business acts and practices; misleading and deceptive advertising; untrue advertising; and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Act and Beverly-Song Act. A copy of the Tetley Tea False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit can be read here. The case is Daryl De Keczer v. Tetley USA, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-02409, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division.
Updated May 16th, 2012 All class action and lawsuit news updates are listed in the Lawsuit News section of Top Class Actions ©2008 - 2012 Top Class Actions® LLC Various Trademarks held by their respective owners. |
|
Wednesday, 16 May 2012 06:39 |
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook for the latest Class Action Settlement News! Chobani Greek Yogurt Class Action Lawsuit
By Sarah Pierce
 A class action lawsuit claims Chobani Greek Yogurt labels contain false and deceptive claims about the products' health and nutritional benefits. "As part of its overall marketing strategy, Chobani has recognized the desire of many of its consumers to eat a healthier diet comprised of natural foods and foods that lack added sugar. Chobani recognizes that natural and health claims drive sales, and consequently, actively promotes the naturalness and health benefits of its products," the class action lawsuit states. What consumers don't realize, however, is that despite label claims that Chobani Greek Yogurt contains "All Natural Ingredients," "No artificial flavors," and is sweetened with "evaporated cane juice," the yogurt products actually contain artificial ingredients, flavorings, coloring, and chemical preservatives, according to the Chobani class action lawsuit.
For example, the Nutrition Facts for Chobani's Greek Yogurt, Pomegranate flavor, state that it has 19 grams of sugar, but the ingredient section fails to list "sugar" or "dried cane syrup" as an ingredient, the class action lawsuit states. Instead, the label lists "Evaporated Cane Juice" as an ingredient, despite the fact that the FDA has specifically warned companies not to use this term because it is "false and misleading," does not accurately describe the ingredients utilized, and because Evaporated Cane Juice is not a juice. "If a manufacturer is going to make a claim on a food label, the label must meet certain legal requirements that help consumers make informed choices and ensure that they are not misled," the Chobani Greek Yogurt class action lawsuit continues. The Chobani class action lawsuit is brought on behalf of all California residents who, within the last four years, purchased Chobani's Greek Yogurt products labeled with the ingredient "Evaporated Cane Juice" and/or labeled "All Natural Ingredients" or "Only Natural Ingredients," but which actually contain artificial ingredients, flavorings, coloring, and/or chemical preservatives. It is seeking damages, restitution, and more for alleged claims misleading and deceptive advertising; fraudulent, unlawful and unfair business acts and practices; and violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Beverly-Song Act and Magnuson-Moss Act. A copy of the Chobani Greek Yogurt Deceptive Advertising Class Action Lawsuit can be read here. The case is Katie Kane v. Chobani, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-02425, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division.
Updated May 16th, 2012 All class action and lawsuit news updates are listed in the Lawsuit News section of Top Class Actions ©2008 - 2012 Top Class Actions® LLC Various Trademarks held by their respective owners. |
|
Wednesday, 16 May 2012 00:00 |
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook for the latest Class Action Settlement News! HughesNet Satellite Internet Class Action Settlement By Mike Holter
 Hughes Communications has reached a class action lawsuit settlement that will provide either $5 or $40 cash to certain former HughesNet satellite internet subscribers. The HughesNet settlement will resolve a class action lawsuit, entitled Walter v. Hughes Communications, that alleges Hughes misrepresented the actual speed of its HughesNet internet service, unjustly cut off customers from their Internet for violating the company's "Fair Access Policy," and charged improper Early Termination Fees. Class Members of the HughesNet class action settlement include everyone in the U.S. who, at any time from May 15, 2005 to March 2, 2012, subscribed to any of the following Hughes Consumer Service Plans: Home, Pro, Pro Plus, Small Office, Business Internet, Elite, ElitePlus, ElitePremium, Basic, Power 150 and Power 200. As part of the class action lawsuit settlement, Hughes has agreed to make cash payments to eligible Class Members who submit a valid claim form postmarked no later than September 28, 2012. Claim forms can be downloaded or submitted online at www.SatelliteInternetSettlement.com.
Class Members who paid an Early Termination Fee before December 6, 2010 will get $40 from the class action settlement, while Class Members who were no longer a Hughes Consumer Plan subscriber as of March 2, 2012 and did not pay an ETF before December 6, 2010 will receive $5.
Updated May 16th, 2012 All class action and lawsuit news updates are listed in the Lawsuit News section of Top Class Actions ©2008 - 2012 Top Class Actions® LLC Various Trademarks held by their respective owners. |
|
