Posts Tagged ‘ Consumer Fraud ’
CarFax Consumer Fraud? You be the Judge
May 3rd, 2012. By AbiK
This kind of thing can really tick a person off—when a website does a bait and switch with you. Check out CarFax—the ‘vehicle history reports’ website. Folks go to CarFax with pretty much one purpose in mind—to look up a car’s VIN number (the Vehicle Identification Number) in order to find out the car’s repair history—or what problems that particular car might have. Here’s the CarFax homepage:
You’ll note—how can you not?—the khaki-clad Car Fox inviting you to do a “Free Vehicle Search”. Talk about a wolf (ok, a fox) in sheep’s clothing. No asterisks. No disclaimers. Just a couple of fields that you can input either a car’s VIN number or the license plate number and state where it’s registered and…bingo!…you should get some car info. For free, right?
No, not right. Here’s what you get on the next screen:
Want any actual information about the car—it’ll cost you $34.99. See it’s a “vehicle” search—not a “vehicle information” search.
Now, I knew this already—trying to get a vehicle history report online for free is like trying to get blood from a stone. But at least on sites like Vin Central you get a portion of the history report and then there is a fee if you want the whole report. The key, however, is that Vin Central never says or implies upfront that you’ll get anything for free. So with Vin Central, you at least feel that the company hasn’t tried to bamboozle you.
But CarFax? When it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck…and this duck looks and walks like false advertising. And sadly, just a quick search on LawyersandSettlements.com shows that CarFax false advertising complaints are not new.
If you scroll to the very bottom of the CarFax homepage, to the list of links there, you’ll see “FREE SERVICES”. And yes, you can find out whether a car has been identified as a lemon or not. For free. You can also conduct a CarFax “Record Check”—which, ironically, is basically the same thing as the “Free Vehicle Search” above—you get a “search” but no “search results“. The Record Check tells you how many records have been found and then if you want to actually see those records, well, you need to hand over that $34.99. But at least you know you were only supposed to get a record check—not necessarily the records AND the information found in those records.
So is this CarFax consumer fraud? It certainly looks like a bait and switch to me, but you be the judge.
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.
Gambling for Justice: Class Action Lawsuit v. Small Claims Court, Place Your Bets
January 13th, 2012. By AbiK
It’s a well-chronicled sentiment: class action lawsuit lawyers get rich on attorneys’ fees and the little guy gets stiffed. Whether true or not—and there are arguments on both sides—it’s easy to see how a settlement check for $1.13 can make a plaintiff feel like ‘thanks, but no thanks’. And that brings us to the case of Heather Peters, who is suing Honda in small claims court over her claim that Honda engaged in false advertising when it stated her 2006 Honda Civic Hybrid had a 50 MPG rating.
Small claims court? Isn’t that only for some kind of ‘my boyfriend split with my smart phone and $800 I had under the mattress” type of reality tv show crap?
Well, no—and that’s the point—or calculated bet—Peters is trying to make. See, according to the Honda Civic Hybrid Class Action lawsuit proposed settlement FAQ, each class member would receive $100 as settlement. Peters, who is a former attorney herself, deems that a bit of a paltry sum and so she took the route that most of us do not and she chose to opt out of the proposed settlement. And, in turn, she took her complaint to small claims court.
What’s intriguing about her choice is that, not only can she seek up to $10,000—the new 2012 limit set for small claims in California where the complaint is being heard—but, if she can persuade enough 2003-2009 Honda Civic Hybrid owners to follow suit (no pun) and head to small claims court, she estimates that Honda would be liable for nearly $2 billion—vs the current liability they face coming out of the class action lawsuit in which each class member would receive $100.
Talk about power to the people—if only the people took to the power—by February 11, 2012—the date by which class members’ opt out requests to the Settlement Administrator need to be postmarked.
At issue in the Honda Civic Hybrid Class Action lawsuit is not just that advertised miles per gallon (MPG) ratings for the car were misrepresented, but also—and here’s where a subclass of class members enters into the picture, to which Peters also belongs—that for model years 2006-2008, Honda Civic Hybrid (HCH) owners were told their cars needed a software update to the Integrated Motor Assist (“IMA”) battery system.
What HCH owners didn’t know—and American Honda Motor Co. apparently did not disclose—was that allegedly, in order to install the update, the result would be a negative impact on fuel economy. Not ideal when the primary reason you purchased the car was for its fuel economy.
You can start to see where $100 per claimant—worth what? a couple of tank fills?—isn’t sounding like much.
So Peters is placing her bets on small claims court. But as stated earlier, it’s a bit of a calculated bet for her–she’s done, and doing her homework. Just see her website. And she says that anyone can do the same.
But would you?
Prepping for small claims court, sans an attorney of course as that’s part of the charm of small claims court—no lawyers allowed—takes time. And, you do have to have the ability to put together a pretty darn good case, particularly if you’re taking on a major corporation. Given that, it comes down to whether you think it’s worth it, or not. And that’s probably why so many of us sit back and await whatever settlement check we receive.
You have to admire Peters though. She’s up for a fight, and she’s got a pretty good one from the looks of it—perhaps even a new profession in behind-the-scenes small claims coaching. And, at least she is not just sitting back and complaining about attorneys’ fees—she’s trying to take a stand, both literally and figuratively.
Peters’ next hearing date is January 25.
Channeling Picasso for Oscillo Flu Relief Fraud?
January 11th, 2012. By AbiK
Picasso must be rolling in his grave at Château de Vauvenargues. That is, if he’s seen the latest round of homeopathic ‘remedy’, Oscillo, flu symptom relief ads. Yes, the same Oscillo that found itself on the receiving end of a class action lawsuit last August for fraudulent marketing—something about its being “nothing more than a sugar pill.”
Well, those Oscillo (or Oscillococcinum) marketers over at Boiron, which has its US headquarters not far out of Philly, must’ve taken a field trip when the Picasso exhibit was at the Philadelphia Museum of Art—and in a flash of creative genius someone said, “that Picasso right there…it’s the embodiment of the being…completely ensnared by flu…just feel the incoherence begging for clarity!” Ah yes, the germ of an ad campaign, right then and there. Just add water.
That’s the ad at left. You can see it has an illustration of a woman, clearly a bit discombobulated a’la Picasso, that’s meant to show how she’s suffering from flu symptoms. Woe is she, indeed.
But then, she takes homeopathic Oscillo and before you know it, everything is clear, a gentle breeze flows through her hair and she smiles as she takes in the great outdoors around her, lake and all.
There’s this little splotch of text, however, under the “after” picture. It reads,
“Time-accelerated dramatization.”
Hmm.
Are they for real? I hope someone (namely the art and copy team on this) had a good laugh. Sure it’s there as a legal disclaimer, but it’s a cartoon folks. I’m thinking we, as readers of the ad, would first have to believe that some parallel cartoon reality actually existed—like in Mary Poppins when they all hop into the sidewalk drawing—in order to expect cartoon-like results in our normal reality. Tracking with me?
But the American public is not that stupid.
Nor is it foolish when it comes to reading package labels. Here’s what the Oscillococcinum one has on its back (forgive the resolution):
Active Ingredient: Anas Barbariae Hepatis et Cordis Extractum 200CK HPUS; Inactive ingredients: sucrose, lactose.
Now, if you whip out your Cassell’s Latin Dictionary, you’ll find that the active ingredient is extract of duck liver and heart. The 200CK means that its gone through a series of 200 dilutions—with each one equating a 1:100 dilution. If you do the math, the level of “active ingredient” would seem to get rather miniscule, leaving almost…nothing. (In fact, the court filing for the Oscillo class action states that, given the dilution, “At this purported ratio, the probability of getting 1 molecule of the active ingredient of Oscillo in a regular dosage is approximately equal to winning the Powerball every week for nearly an entire year.” Someone has a sense of humor!)
For those who missed basic nutrition class, the inactive ingredients, sucrose and lactose are sugars.
Nothing—or almost nothing—and sugar is, well, sugar. Which is the basis for the Oscillo false marketing class action lawsuit.
I suppose Boiron deserves some kudos for creativity—on both fronts, product development and advertising. But that’ll only go so far to “reduce the duration and severity of flu symptoms” including body aches, headache, fever, chills and fatigue. And exactly how far is what the class action will determine now.
Jersey Shore Bar Caught in Vodka Switch Scam
December 13th, 2011. By AbiK
Is it any wonder that New Jersey gets the rap it does—surely you saw the “revised” map of NJ that was going viral last week—when there are consumer fraud stories like this to report? Full disclosure: this is being penned in “Christie Country”, per the new map.
Our focus, however, for this gem is Brigantine, NJ—just north of Atlantic City.
It seems that the Laguna Grill and Martini Bar there had been serving up lower than top-shelf vodka in top-shelf vodka bottles. So, for example, maybe the label being poured was “Stoli” but the vodka hitting the glass was Popov. Or in this case, Burnett’s or Absolut. It’s a higher stakes version of the put-Catsup-in-a-Heinz-bottle scam that’s been the ruin of many a fine french-fry order.
Here’s the thing that makes this a stereotypically Jersey story. See, it’s not like any self-respecting bar-frequenting martini drinker has never heard of such a practice—that can happen anywhere. And, in a heavily trafficked bar such a thing can be mitigated by asking for a new bottle—it won’t go to waste, after all. So no—the fact that a vodka scam like this was going on is not, in and of itself, a Joisey moment. That honor is derived from the fact that these fools got caught—and caught badly!
If you’re going to scam straight-up vodka or vodka-based martini drinkers, you need to be a few steps ahead of them. And for heaven’s sake, don’t take your cues from Hansel and Gretel and leave a blatant trail—the object is to NOT be found.
According to CourierPostOline.com, not only did investigators—who searched the premises of Laguna Grill after a few tips—find a “large red funnel” in the bar storage area, but—and this is key—there was also a cardboard sign posted telling bar staff to save the empty bottles of top-shelf vodka brand.
That perhaps would’ve been enough of a trail to make investigators raise an eyebrow–but this gets better.
On the heels of denying any allegations of scamming customers with cheap vodka, Prudenzia “Maria” Pullella (backstory: she’s the bar manager, and the bar is owned by Dominic “Tony” Pullella, who happens to be a Brigantine Councilman—can’t make this sh*t up!)—another little discovery was made.
A little accounts receivable tracking revealed that, gee whiz, more top-shelf vodka was being sold than was being purchased! How could that be?
And so, Maria Pullella had a bit of egg on her face as the jig—jigger?—was up.
And now it’s penalty time. The beachfront Laguna Grill and Martini Bar will close for a seven-day period in the summer (high season! cha-ching!) and will also fork over a $23,000 fine. That’s a lot of vodka—top-shelf or not.
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)