Follow us on Twitter and Facebook for the latest Class Action Settlement News! Prius Headlight Class Action Continues
By Kimberly Mirando A Los Angeles federal judge has refused to throw out a class action lawsuit against Toyota over defective headlights in their Prius vehicles. The 2009 Prius headlight class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of consumers who purchased the optional HID headlight system for their 2006 through 2010 Toyota Prius vehicles. Standard Priuses come equipped with halogen headlights, which are not at issue in the lawsuit. According to the lawsuit, Toyota failed to warn customers that the HID headlights on 2006 through 2010 Priuses can sporadically turn on and off while the car is being driven, creating a safety hazard. As of December 2009, when the lawsuit was filed, more than 1,000 consumer complaints had been logged with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, yet Toyota continued to not acknowledge the headlight failures, according to the lawsuit. The class action suit also alleges that after dealerships learned about the problem, they either did nothing to remedy it or chose to replace the defective headlight systems with “equally defective parts” that cost consumers up to $1,800. Toyota argued that most of the alleged defects occurred after the class members’ warranties had expired, and that while headlight failure posed a potential safety risk if both headlights simultaneously fail at night, it “does not present an unreasonably dangerous condition” because every vehicle operator accepts the “known and inevitable” risk that headlight failure could occur. “Lots of people feel this is a safety hazard,” said a lawyer for one of the plaintiffs, adding that it’s just as much of a safety defect as the acceleration problem that forced Toyota to recall more than 8 million vehicles. “The law requires operating headlights.” The Los Angeles federal judge agreed, ruling that Toyota must face the class action lawsuit. The Prius HID headlight class action lawsuit is seeking restitution for a nationwide group of class members. This isn’t the first class action lawsuit we’ve seen this year over defective high-intensity discharge, or HID, headlight systems. Volkswagen is currently facing a similar lawsuit that claims the HID headlamps in some of its VW and Audi vehicles flicker and suddenly shut off while the car is being driven.
With so many cars driving around with defective headlights, it kind of makes you want to stay off the road at night. Updated August 23rd, 2010 All class action and lawsuit news updates are listed in the Lawsuit News section of Top Class Actions ©2008 - 2010 Top Class Actions® LLC Various Trademarks held by their respective owners. |
|
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook for the latest Class Action Settlement News! Century 21 Franchisees Win Class Certification By Matt O'Donnell
Century 21 franchisees involved in an 8-year-old lawsuit against the company have finally been granted class action status this week. The 2002 class action lawsuit accused Century 21 of misusing franchisee proceeds after the company was acquired by Cendant in 1995. The lawsuit claims Cendant misused the money, which directly contributed to the demise of Century 21 in the real estate market. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of five Century 21 brokerages located in Arizona, Florida, Michigan and New Jersey, and sought class action certification to cover other brokers. The lawsuit alleged Century 21 and Cendant failed to provide the required level of services, and misused fees paid by franchisees by placing them into a national advertising fund that was supposed to benefit Century 21 franchisees, but was ultimately used for other purposes. The class action lawsuit claims franchisees paid 8 percent of their gross revenue income into the advertising fund for a collective sum of $40 million each year. The fund was supposed to be used to advertise and build the Century 21 brand, but Cendant used the money to grow its company-owned Coldwell Banker broker franchises, in which Cendant had a more “beneficial financial interest.” Before Cendant acquired Century 21, Century 21 was the largest volume brokerage firm in the country, and was rated the number-one real estate company nationally. After the acquisition, however, Century 21’s ratings in the real estate market dropped from first to approximately sixth as a “direct result of Cendant’s acquisitions and mergers,” the lawsuit says. The lawsuit claims this was in large part due to Cendant utilizing the market power and resources of Century 21 franchisees to promote Coldwell Banker franchisees and other Cendant companies to push Century 21 franchisees out of their number-one position in the real estate market. The fall of Century 21, the lawsuit claims, was not the result of competitive growth and development by Cendant, but rather “the anti-competitive, willful and intentional conduct of Cendant in misappropriating and diverting money and resources from Century 21 franchisees and allotting them, instead, to other Cendant owned companies.” The newly certified class action lawsuit includes at least 1,000 current and former Century 21 franchisees (and possibly 4,000 or more) that had active franchises from August 1995 to April 2002. Attorneys for the franchisees estimate the class action lawsuit settlement could total hundreds of millions of dollars. You can read the lawsuit documents here. Updated August 20th, 2010 All class action and lawsuit news updates are listed in the Lawsuit News section of Top Class Actions ©2008 - 2010 Top Class Actions® LLC Various Trademarks held by their respective owners. |
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook for the latest Class Action Settlement News! T-Mobile Data Throttling Lawsuit Filed By Kimberly Mirando
A class action lawsuit filed in California claims T-Mobile tricks consumers into purchasing “Unlimited Web & Email” plans, but then cuts off their data use once they’re locked into a contract. The plaintiff who filed the class action lawsuit against T-Mobile claims he was misled by a T-Mobile sales rep into believing that the service plan he was signing up for was truly unlimited. He alleges he was never told that his data usage would be capped at 5GB or 10GB until he received a text message from T-Mobile informing him that he had exceeded his data usage for the current billing cycle, resulting in a reduced data speed for the remainder of the cycle. The lawsuit claims the throttle placed on his phone rendered it “essentially useless for anything other than making or receiving phone calls and text messages.” The T-Mobile class action lawsuit says consumers are “likely to be misled by T-Mobile’s promise of ‘unlimited’ data” because sales reps don’t warn consumers and nowhere on T-Mobile’s merchandising is there an asterisk next to “unlimited” that explains it actually is limited. The lawsuit claims the only warning given to consumers is buried in the hard-to-read fine print on the last page of the T-Mobile brochure that says: “Your data session may be slowed, suspended, terminated, or restricted if you use your service in a way that interferes with or impacts our network or ability to provide quality service to other users.” A similar lawsuit over undisclosed data limits was brought against Verizon in 2007 by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. That lawsuit resulted in a $1 million settlement for consumers whose accounts had been terminated after they went over the “invisible” data limits. The T-Mobile class action lawsuit is seeking an injunction barring T-Mobile from advertising its plans as “unlimited,” as well as restitution for the money class members spent on smartphones and their data plans. A copy of the lawsuit can be found here. Updated August 19th, 2010 All class action and lawsuit news updates are listed in the Lawsuit News section of Top Class Actions ©2008 - 2010 Top Class Actions® LLC Various Trademarks held by their respective owners. |
|
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
|
|
Page 8 of 95 |