As Facebook launched its IPO on Friday, it was hit with yet another class action lawsuit over its practice of tracking of users even after they had logged out of its website. Facebook users on Friday filed an amended consolidated class action complaint in federal court in San Jose, Calif. The privacy suit involves alleged Facebook Internet tracking violations and seeks a minimum of $15 billion in damages.

This latest lawsuit consolidates 21 related cases filed in more than a dozen states in 2011 and early 2012. Those states reportedly include Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana and Mississippi. The consolidated lawsuit filed on Friday asserts claims under the Wiretap Act, which provides statutory damages of $100 per day per violation per user up to a maximum of $10,000 for each user. Even if Facebook's only found to have incurred one violation of the act per class member, it would be liable for more than $15 billion in damages across the class, class counsel Stewart Law said.  Further, the consolidated lawsuit asserts claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Stored Communications Act, various California statutes, and California common law.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.