Class Action Blog

Skechers Settles Lawsuit with the FTC for $40 Million

Fri, 18 May 2012 00:33:00 GMT

Consumers who purchased Skechers Shape-Ups or other toning shoes designed by the company are now eligible for a partial refund from a $40 million settlement. Skechers reached with the Federal Trade Committee and 42 states with class action lawsuits. The suit centered around the allegation that Skechers made false claims regarding its sneakers’ ability to tone and tighten muscles, improve posture, and aid in weight loss.

After reviewing the research Skechers used to establish and support its fitness claims, the FTC concluded the “studies were false,” and that, in reality, the sneakers had the adverse effect of leading to wearers actually gaining weight. A University of Wisconsin study corroborates the FTC findings as its findings indicate that replacing basic running sneakers with toning shoes does not result in increased muscle activity in areas such as the calves, quads, back and abs as the shoes’ manufacturers contend.

Skechers maintains the appropriateness of its advertising and continues to back its assertions touting Shape-Up’s role as a fitness and weight loss tool. The company released a statement Wednesday, May 16 explaining that it “denies the allegations,” but has decided to settle the claims “to avoid protracted legal proceedings.”

This $40 million Skechers settlement comes on the heels of a $25 million settlement reached between Reebok and the FTC last September that sought consumer redress for Reebok’s false advertising claims regarding the fitness benefits of its toning sneakers. Hundreds of thousands of purchasers of Reebok’s toning sneakers applied for refunds following the settlement, and a similar procedure is being utilized in the Skechers case as consumers must visit the FTC website to apply for a refund of their Skechers toning shoes purchase.

Companies Employing Telemarketing in Violation of the Do Not Call Registry

Wed, 16 May 2012 17:14:00 GMT

The Do Not Call Registry, managed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the nation's consumer protection agency, offers registration for consumers to stop for-profit commercial telemarketers from calling. Registration does not expire; telephone numbers placed on the National Do Not Call Registry will remain on it permanently due to the Do-Not-Call Improvement Act of 2007, which became law in February 2008.

Progressive Auto Insurance and other large for-profit companies are violating the Do Not Call law by continuing to call consumers who have had their phone numbers registered with the Do Not Call Registry for over 31 days. If you received an unwanted call after your number was on the National Registry for 31 days, or if you received a call that used a recorded message instead of a live person (whether or not your number was on the Registry), please contact the law firm of Arias Ozzello & Gignac LLP to discuss your legal options.

Class Action Suit Against Apple on Behalf of iPod Customers Will Proceed

Wed, 16 May 2012 17:24:00 GMT

A federal court in the Northern District of California recently ruled that a class-action suit filed against Apple on behalf of consumers who purchased an iPod between September 2006 and March 2009 may proceed as a class action. The suit, brought by three individuals who purchased iPods during the time period, alleges that software updates issued by Apple in 2006 for the iPod device violated federal and state laws by preventing the music players from playing songs not purchased on iTunes, thereby mandating iPod owners become iTunes customers and, in effect, increasing the price of iPod ownership. The suit, known as In re Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation, applies to certain models of the iPod produced between 2006 and 2009.

For its part, Apple denies any wrongdoing and insists its software updates improve its products and the user’s experience without affecting cost.

For more information on this suit, including a list of qualifying iPod models, please visit ipodlawsuit.com.

California Court Rules Employers Not Required to Enforce Break Rules

Mon, 14 May 2012 02:43:00 GMT

In a verdict that is disappointing to California employment lawyers, the Supreme Court has ruled that while employers are required to provide meal breaks to employees, they're not required to enforce these breaks. In other words, should the worker choose not to take a break but continue working, the employer would not be found liable.

The decision came in Brinker Restaurant Corp. Versus Superior Court of San Diego, a case that was filed by workers of the restaurant chain Chili's. The workers claimed that they had frequently missed their breaks, and that this violated California law.

In 2001, the state had imposed a law that required companies that did not make it mandatory for their employees to take rest or meal breaks pay a financial penalty. If workers missed a 30-minute rest break, then the employer was required to pay a one-hour wage to the employee.

However, the Supreme Court now believes that the penalties are unenforceable, and that use of the rest break should be left to workers. The court held that businesses do have an obligation to provide enough meal and rest breaks to an employee, and workers have the right to spend that half hour as they wish. If they wish to continue working, then it is not mandatory that the employer force them to take a break. According to the court ruling, the employer has completed his obligation to the worker, when he has relieved the worker of duty, and has given him a reasonable opportunity to take an uninterrupted half-hour break.

The plaintiffs did get some respite, however. The court did not dismiss outright the claims that the company violated employees’ meal break rights. Those charges will be argued again in a California court. The case could eventually become a class-action.

Swiss Pharmaceutical Company Issues Recall of Nebraska Lethal Injection Drug

Sat, 12 May 2012 00:25:00 GMT

A Swiss pharmaceutical company has notified the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that it is recalling a supply of the lethal injection drug sodium thiopental held by Nebraska, which could leave the state without a means to carry out executions for the foreseeable future.

"The product is being recalled from the market because it was illegally diverted from the company's supply chain and has been outside the company's control in breach of Naari AG's established standard operating practices," Naari AG says in a document sent to the FDA. Sodium thiopental has been in short supply since 2010, when the only U.S. manufacturer, Hospira Inc., ended production because of death-penalty opposition from overseas customers. After that, the European Union banned the export of some barbituric acids, including sodium thiopental, further diminishing the drug's availability for use in lethal injections.

Last year, Nebraska prison officials bought a supply made by Naari from a middleman named Chris Harris, and his company Harris Pharma LLP. Attorney Jerry Soucie of the Nebraska Commission on Public Advocacy, who represents death-row inmate Michael Ryan, has been arguing that Nebraska should not be allowed to use it because Harris was not authorized to sell the samples meant for use in testing. That, he contends, means Harris misappropriated the thiopental, and Nebraska is in possession of stolen property.

Nebraska prison officials refused a request by Naari to return the drug. Last month, the FDA ordered them to contact the FDA and make arrangements to turn over "any foreign-manufactured thiopental in your possession." The letter followed a recent ruling by U.S. District Judge Richard Leon that said the FDA ignored the law in allowing foreign-made sodium thiopental into the country.

Half of Drug Labels Still Missing Dose Safety Guidelines for Children

Thu, 10 May 2012 21:03:00 GMT

Reuters reports that, according to a new study released by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, approximately half of all pharmaceutical drug labels lack adequate information regarding safe dosage amounts for children. Through the course of the study, 560 medications used to treat ailments ranging from allergies to heart disease were examined to determine whether the medications’ labels provide sufficient information regarding child dosage. The examination revealed that 54% of the selected medications lacked specific instructions for safety and dosage in children.

Although that number represents a vast improvement from the 1 in 5 medication labels that carried such instructions in 1975, the lack of empirical knowledge regarding child dosage in over half of medications proves problematic for doctors treating children with less-common childhood ailments, such as cancer or arthritis. As the just-released study indicates, while medications used to treat and prevent ailments prevalent to children, asthma and vaccines for instance, typically do provide child dosage information, lack of dosage and safety guidelines for children for other, less child-relevant medications causes the doctors treating these children to attempt to adjust the adult dosage measurements provided to fit children. This leads to equivocation regarding ideal dose amounts, and makes it difficult for doctors to ascertain whether a dose of a drug or the drug itself is ineffective in treating a child whose therapy does not provide improvement. Ostensibly, this disparity in drug knowledge places children battling these diseases at a disadvantage, and also leaves critical room for error as doctors must estimate effective dosage labels.

The FDA hopes the results of this study will encourage drug manufacturers to research and establish safe dosage guidelines for children in all medications, not just those used to treat ailments endemic to children.

Product Recall: Children’s Clothing with Drawstrings

Wed, 09 May 2012 22:50:00 GMT

In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, La Jolla Sport USA Inc. dba O'Neill Clothing, of Irvine, Calif. announced Wednesday a recall of boy's O'Neill Pluto hooded flannel shirts. The hooded sweatshirts have drawstrings in the neck that can pose a strangulation hazard to children. In February 1996, CPSC issued guidelines (pdf) about drawstrings in children's upper outerwear. In 1997, those guidelines were incorporated into a voluntary standard. Then, in July 2011, based on the guidelines and voluntary standard, CPSC issued a federal regulation. CPSC's actions demonstrate a commitment to help prevent children from strangling or getting entangled on neck and waist drawstrings in upper outerwear, such as jackets and sweatshirts.

Customer Complaints Mount Regarding Defective Power Cords and AC Adapters for Barnes & Noble’s Nook Tablet

Tue, 08 May 2012 21:44:00 GMT

Customers who purchased Barnes & Noble’s Nook tablet have reported numerous complaints about the accessories that provide power to their new tablet. In some instances, it is the AC adapter for the Nook tablet that quickly fails after ordinary use. In other instances, it is the Nook power cable supplied by Barnes and Nobles that breaks, again with just a few months of use. In either case, without power, customers complain that their new Nook Tablet becomes an expensive paperweight.

The consumer protection attorneys at Arias Ozzello & Gignac are currently investigating claims that Barnes and Nobles sells or supplies Nook Customers with power cables and AC adapters that are routinely defective. If you purchased a Nook Tablet and your AC adapter or power cable stopped working within the first year of purchase, you may be entitled to compensation for the cost of your power cable or AC adapter, as well as damages for the loss of use of your Nook Tablet during the time you waited for a replacement.

FDA: Celgene Drug Revlimid Increases Risk Of Certain New Cancers

Tue, 08 May 2012 18:46:00 GMT

This week the FDA issued an extensive warning regarding the risk of developing a second cancer while being treated with Revlimid. This safety information has been added to the Warnings and Precautions section of the Revlimid drug label. The patient Medication Guide is also being updated to inform patients about this risk.

The FDA's update comes on the heels of a change the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) made to the prescribing information for Revlimid (lenalidomide) in March of this year. The change involved the addition of a warning that patients being treated with Revlimid have an increased risk of developing a second cancer. Today’s update by the FDA includes more specific details of the agency’s analyses of Revlimid and second cancers.

Patients should contact their healthcare professional if they have any questions or concerns about Revlimid.

Judge Sets Trial Date in Bard Avaulta Mesh Cases

Tue, 08 May 2012 00:01:00 GMT

U.S. District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin recently set a February 5 trial date in West Virginia for the C.R. Bard Avaulta vaginal mesh cases. This trial date covers the first of nearly 600 federal cases against Bard for its vaginal mesh implant. Judge Goodwin is also overseeing trials against Johnson & Johnson, American Medical Systems, and Boston Scientific for failures in their comparable mesh implants.

In July 2011, the FDA issued a universal safety warning against these devices for a high risk of adverse side effects. Over 75,000 women a year have these mesh devices implanted and hundreds, if not thousands, suffer immense pain and have to undergo additional surgeries. The FDA has recently ordered all manufacturers of the vaginal mesh to conduct studies based on the high rates of failure, complications, and organ damage.

The medical device attorneys at Arias Ozzello & Gignac are investigating claims against the manufacturers of the vaginal mesh devices. If you or someone you know has a mesh implant and is experiencing severe pain or has undergone corrective or removal surgeries, contact us today for a free consultation. You may be entitled to compensation for your pain, suffering, and other damages.

Nutella Settles Class Action Lawsuit Over False Advertising Claims

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 21:05:00 GMT

The Consumerist reports that Italian confectionery group Ferrero has agreed to set aside $3 million to settle a class-action lawsuit championed by a Californian mother after she discovered the group's Nutella chocolate spread packed more calories than jam or syrup.

Notices of class action settlements said that Ferrero USA Inc., the group's U.S. division, would pay up to $4 for every jar of Nutella bought in California since August 2009, or bought anywhere else in the United States since January 2008. The notices posted on nutellaclassactionsettlement.com said the settlement was for $3,050,000 in total.

Ferrero USA also agreed to "modify certain marketing statements about Nutella" and to give more prominence to nutrition labels on Nutella jars, the notices said.

Nad’s Body Wax Strips Prompt Whistleblower Complaint

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 18:15:00 GMT

A whistleblower complaint has recently been filed against Sue Ismiel & Daughters, Inc. (SI&D) by the former president of the company’s U.S. subsidiary. According to his complaint, the former president was terminated after he tried to stop the Australian-based company from selling its Nad’s brand of hair removal products which the company knew to be defective.

Although SI&D knew that its products were defective, the Australian company’s board of directors refused to follow its former president’s recommendation to recall the defective products, retorting that its customers would be “better off” not knowing the purchased products were flawed.

SI&D’s hair-removal gels, lotions and strips are sold at Target, CVS, Rite Aid, Walgreens, Amazon.com, and other major chains. The hair removal products are sold under numerous product names, including: Nad’s Body Wax Strips, Nad's Facial Wax Strips, Nad's Brazilan & Bikini Wax Kit, and Nad's Bikini and Underarm Strips.

The consumer protection attorneys at Arias Ozzello & Gignac are currently investigating potential claims against SI&D. If you or someone you know purchased a Nad’s brand of hair removal product in 2010 or 2011, contact us today to discuss your legal options. You may be entitled to compensation.

$4 Million Awarded in Prempro Breast Cancer Case

Tue, 24 Apr 2012 19:03:00 GMT

A jury in Connecticut recently ruled that Pfizer must pay at least $4 million to a woman, Margaret Fraser, who developed breast cancer after taking the drug Prempro. The jurors held Pfizer liable for causing Fraser’s breast cancer due to conclusions that Prempro is a dangerous product and that Pfizer misrepresented its risks and benefits. The $4 million awarded to Fraser does not include punitive damages which will later be decided by a federal judge.

More than 6 million women have taken Prempro to combat the symptoms of menopause before the study in 2002 suggested a link between the drug and cancer. The Prempro litigation attorneys at Arias Ozzello & Gignac are currently researching claims against Pfizer and its Wyeth unit for the menopause drug’s adverse side effects. If you or someone you know has taken Prempro and developed breast cancer, contact us today for a free consultation. You may be entitled to compensation for your damages.

Law Firm Settles Age Discrimination Lawsuit

Tue, 24 Apr 2012 02:19:00 GMT

A New York-based law firm has settled a lawsuit filed by a partner, who alleged that the law firm discriminated against the partner based on his age. The age bias lawsuit is being settled for about half a million dollars.

The law firm, Kelley Drye and Warren LLP has reached an agreement with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Under the terms of the agreement, the law firm will pay partner Eugene D’Ablemont approximately $450,000 for work performed between 2001 and 2010. He will also receive $100,000 for work performed in 2011.

The agreement also provides that 81-year-old D’Ablemont receive approximately 12% of the annual fees collected by the law firm in certain client matters. As part of the agreement, the law firm also agreed not to revive its policy of ‘de-equitizing’ a partner at the age of 70, or put into place any other kind of policy that would dramatically impact the status of a person because of his age.

The lawsuit was filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The lawsuit was filed in 2010, and alleged that the firm's policy of ‘de-equitizing’ partners after 70, constituted a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. In 2010, the law firm abandoned the practice altogether. As part of the agreement, Kelley Drye and Warren also agreed to undergo training on federal antidiscrimination laws.

This lawsuit is particularly interesting to California workplace discrimination lawyers, because it deals with partners, who may be considered part owners of a firm, and not employees. Federal laws have provisions in place that protect employees against discrimination, but there are no protections for owners. Under the terms of the agreement, however, Kelley Dryer denied that its partners qualified as owners.

New Bill Could Change Laws Regarding Generic Drugs

Mon, 23 Apr 2012 21:14:00 GMT

Federal law currently stipulates that a generic drug’s label must mirror exactly the name brand’s label. Therefore, brand name manufacturers control the information on their own labels as well as information on the generic drugs’ labels. Since generic drug manufacturers cannot control the information listed on their prescription drugs, patients injured from these drugs’ adverse side effects cannot file lawsuits after taking the generic drug. This law preempts thousands of injured patients from filing lawsuits against manufacturers simply because they took the generic brand instead of the name brand. New bills introduced by Congress seek to remedy this discrepancy.

Members of the Senate and House recently introduced companion bills that would allow generic drug makers access to the information on their labels. Since the main deterrence barring patients from suing generic manufacturers would be eliminated, litigation against these manufacturers would be able to proceed. Thousands of patients who have been injured from taking the generic drug could finally sue the manufacturers for failure to warn of the risk of developing a variety of side effects. Some argue that the laws requiring generic drugs to mirror the brand name label gives consumers the confidence to trust in the generic drugs for a majority of their prescriptions. However, others argue that this law unjustly prevents injured patients from filing lawsuits for undisclosed side effects.

For more information about this issue and other pharmaceutical drug litigation, visit our website today.