Class Action Archive
LAS Newsletter: Top Legal News, Free Delivery, Every Week
April 2nd, 2012. By AbiK
Sign up for our free weekly newsletter to keep up on the latest legal news: class action lawsuits, lawsuit settlements, mass tort litigation, securities fraud lawsuits, and more.
The LawyersandSettlements.com newsletter is published weekly, and delivered free to your inbox.
This week’s top legal news: class action lawsuits for CarMax, GoDaddy, Dial Soap, Medicus Golf, Reebok Toning Shoes, Google Privacy, Yo-Plus Yogurt, Harley Davidson, and the Honda Hybrid.
Also, an update on Yasmin and Yaz lawsuits—what’s going on with talk of Bayer Yaz settlements and what does it mean for claimants?
Read all about it—and more—every week. Sign up now!
Reebok Toning Shoes Settlement Claim Forms Due Soon
March 30th, 2012. By AbiK
If you were one of those fitness lovers who drank the Reebok toning shoe Kool-Aid® only to find out there was a Reebok Toning Shoe Class Action Lawsuit, well, the deadline to get your claim form in for the Reebok Toning Shoe Settlement is fast upon us, so listen up!
Why was there a Reebok Toning Shoes Class Action Lawsuit in the first place?
Basically, false advertising—Reebok claimed their toning shoes and apparel would work wonders (surprise, surprise) and the folks who bought them felt otherwise; some even claimed they were injured by the shoes. Needless to say, Reebok denies all wrongdoing. The Court did not decide which side was right. Rather, the parties have decided to settle. So here we are.
Am I part of the Reebok Toning Shoes Class Action Lawsuit?
Darn right you are if you purchased any of the following from Reebok and/or its authorized retailers and wholesalers from December 5, 2008 through October 12, 2011, and meet any other qualifications specified on the settlement notice:
Reebok Toning Shoes (aka “Eligible Shoes”)
- EasyTone
- EasyTone Flip
- RunTone
- TrainTone
- JumpTone
- SimplyTone
- SlimTone
Reebok Toning Apparel (aka “Eligible Apparel”)
- EasyTone Capri
- EasyTone Pants
- EasyTone Shorts
- EasyTone Long Bra Top
- EasyTone Sleeveless Shirt
- EasyTone Short Sleeve Top
How much is the Reebok Toning Shoes Settlement worth?
Well, if you’re a member of the class (ie, you bought one of the eligible items above during the time mentioned above) you may be entitled to part of the settlement.
The Reebok Toning Shoe Settlement utilizes the same $25 million fund announced with the FTC on September 28, 2011, less the costs of notice and settlement administration, to pay claims to eligible Class Members relating to the purchase of eligible shoes and apparel. Court awarded attorneys’ fees and costs and class representative awards will be paid separately by Reebok. Reebok is also agreeing to make certain conduct changes.
The amount of payment to eligible Class Members will vary based on the product(s) purchased, the number and amounts claimed by all Class Members and other adjustments and deductions. The amount could be more (up to double), the same, or less than $50 for each pair of Eligible Shoes, $40 for each EasyTone Capri and EasyTone Pants, and $25 for each applicable shirt, bra top and top.
What do I need to do to get my Reebok Toning Shoe Settlement Payment?
You need to fill out and submit a claim form AT THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR’S WEBSITE HERE.
Your Reebok settlement claim form must be submitted electronically, or postmarked via mail, no later than April 10, 2012.
NOTE: If you already submitted a claim form after the FTC announcement, do not submit another claim form. You will also be sent a notice in the near future about the class action settlement.
The detailed notice for the Reebok toning shoe settlement describes how to file a claim and provides other important information.
Google Privacy Policy Class Action Lawsuit Filed
March 23rd, 2012. By AbiK
You knew it was coming. The minute everyone started to catch on amidst all those Google “new privacy policy” banners that, hey, Google’s going to be tracking every move you make in the name of intuition and “service”, well, you knew a privacy lawsuit would be brewing somewhere.
And so it was.
The Google privacy policy lawsuit was filed in US District Court in Manhattan on behalf of all Google and Android users who signed up for any Google service (Google+, YouTube, Picasa, Gmail, Blogger to name a few) from August 19, 2004 to February 29, 2012 and continued to use a Google account on or after March 1, 2012 when the new Google privacy policy kicked in.
The plaintiffs in the Google lawsuit—David Nisenbaum, Pedro Marti and Allison C. Weiss—are alleging violation of the Computer Fraud Abuse Act, the Federal Wiretap Act and the Stored Electronic Communications Act.
We posted—right before the Google privacy policy went into effect—on how to protect yourself from Google’s monitoring all your comings and goings. Check it out if you haven’t–and update your account settings.
So this one will be one to keep an eye on. The Google privacy policy lawsuit seeks class action status (ie, it’s not certified as a class action lawsuit yet) and the complaint is seeking financial damages.
Beauty Blemish: Avon et al Piss Off PETA, Face Class Action Lawsuit
March 6th, 2012. By AbiK
You’d think Avon would have enough on its vanity right now with those alleged Avon bribery charges in overseas markets and that CEO search they’ve got going on. But, in true hit-’em-when-they’re-down fashion, Avon—along with Mary Kay and Estee Lauder—has just been hit with class action charges—for deceptive and misleading conduct in “marketing, selling, promoting and distributing cosmetic products in the United States”.
More specifically, the newly filed class action is going after the makeup companies’ ‘no animal testing’ claims. (Before we go on, please note, no animals were harmed in the photoshopping of the above image.)
The false advertising class action lawsuit was filed by lead plaintiff Marina Beltran (Beltran et al. v. Estee Lauder, et al., United States District Court – Central District of California, Case No. SA12-CV312 CJC (ANX)) on February 28, 2012. Beltran and her co-lead plaintiffs claim Avon, Estee Lauder and Mary Kay engaged in animal testing on their products even though they advertised that they were “cruelty-free”. The court documents also state that the beauty companies conducted animal testing in order “sell products in China and other foreign countries, thereby reaping hundreds of millions of dollars in sales.” (Wait a minute—China? Wasn’t China the major focus of that Avon bribery investigation?)
The filed court documents state that the “Defendants later purported to disclose, at least on their websites, that they in fact were animal testing, but the disclosures were wholly inadequate and deceptive.”
Not one to sit on the sidelines where animal cruelty is concerned, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) has kicked the companies off its “cruelty free” list, though I imagine that for Avon, that downgrade hasn’t had quite the same sting as the downgrades given to AVP stock by some analysts recently. When it rains, it pours.
Actually, the PETA downgrade is key to the animal testing class action—the court documents state that because Avon, Estee Lauder and Mary Kay had been granted a cherished spot on PETA’s “cruelty free” list, the companies benefited financially—i.e., customers who proactively sought out cosmetic products that were not tested on animals would refer to PETA’s list and patronize those companies on the list.
It’s estimated that the class size for this one is in excess of 1,000,000 members—and the makeup company animal testing class action lawsuit is seeking compensatory damages of $100M.
Repossessed Car Class Action Lawsuit Seeks $5M for Gas
February 27th, 2012. By AbiK
A woman in Michigan has filed a class action lawsuit over $29 of unreturned gas in her repossessed car. The lawsuit is seeking $5 million. Is she out of her ever-lovin’ mind? Is this just another frivolous class action lawsuit? Is her lawyer a complete opportunist? You be the judge.
The back story on this one is that Victoria Jean Church-Dellinger of White Lake, MI was apparently behind on payments for her leased 2008 Pontiac G6. So she defaulted and the lender, Ally Financial Inc., which The Detroit News reports is majority-owned by the US government, repossessed her car.
The car, however, still had a half-tank of gasoline in it when it was repossessed. (I’m guessing someone took photos of the fuel gauge and that there’s gas purchase receipts, odometer readings, and whatever else one would need to prove such was the case at the very moment the car was repossessed—though I can’t say gathering evidence would be the first thing I’d be thinking of when the tow truck showed up.)
Regardless, a quick trek over to fueleconomy.gov shows that the 2008 Pontiac G6 has a fuel tank capacity of 16 gallons. And according to ‘Today’s Regional Gas Prices’ over at AAA’s Fuel Cost Calculator, gas in Michigan is currently running about $3.68 per gallon—meaning that the alleged eight gallons of gas sitting in the repossessed Pontiac is worth $29.44.
Needless to say, Church-Dellinger must not be the only person in Michigan to whom this has happened in the past six years—i.e., having a car repossessed while there’s still leftover gas in the tank.
And therein lies the basis for the class action lawsuit. Or at least the ‘class’ members part of it. The lawsuit itself is apparently based on the argument that, as with all personal property within the repossessed vehicle that must be returned to its owner, so too should the gasoline—or the fair market value of it—be returned to its ‘owner’.
Here’s the quote from Church-Dellinger’s attorney, Brian Parker, that’s been making the rounds in the press to explain this notion: “It’s the same as if you left your jacket in there and they didn’t return it to you. You can’t take someone’s coat or fuzzy dice, and you have to return the gas.” Parker goes on to say, “Gasoline is considered personal property. If it’s in the ground and not extracted, it’s a mineral. If it’s extracted, it’s personal property.”
The repo’d car gas class action lawsuit seeks reimbursement for all gasoline taken as a result of car repossession and it also seeks to have Ally provide credit for gas left in repossessed cars in the future.
Find us on
Archive by Category
- Accidents (24)
- Airlines (9)
- Asbestos Mesothelioma (262)
- Automotive (25)
- Celebrity (14)
- Class Action (84)
- Complaints/Comments (15)
- Consumer Fraud (84)
- Contest (2)
- Court of Public Opinion (5)
- Crazy Sh*t Lawyers See (61)
- Criminal Law (4)
- Defective Products (111)
- DePuy ASR Hip Recall (2)
- Discrimination (22)
- Drugs/Medical (248)
- Elder Care Abuse (4)
- Emerging Issues (462)
- Employment (54)
- Environment (52)
- Financial (28)
- Food Illness (15)
- Human/Civil Rights (4)
- Insecurities (5)
- Insurance (16)
- Intellectual Property (16)
- Internet/E-commerce (19)
- lawsuits (161)
- Lawyers (20)
- Lawyers Giving Back (43)
- Lex Levity (10)
- Personal Injury (106)
- Pleading Ignorance (53)
- Real Estate (2)
- Recall (6)
- Scam (3)
- Securities (13)
- Settlement (81)
- Tort Reform (2)
- Totally Tortelicious (81)
- Veterans (11)
- Whistleblower (9)