Posts Tagged ‘ false advertising ’

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.

Tags: American Honda Motor Co, Class Action Lawsuit, Consumer Fraud, false advertising, HCH, Heather Peters, Honda Civic Class Actin Lawsuit, Honda Civic Hybrid, MPG, Small Claims Court
Posted in Class Action, Consumer Fraud, Emerging Issues | 1 Comment »

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.

Tags: Boiron, Consumer Fraud, false advertising, Homeopathic remedy, Homeopathy, homeopathy-remedy-fraud, Oscillo, Oscillococcinum
Posted in Class Action, Consumer Fraud, Emerging Issues | 7 Comments »

LAS Lookout: Fastin Weight Loss Ad – Read the Small Print

January 5th, 2012. By AbiK

Note to self: when a one-page ad in a magazine has 12 daggers—those are those “†” symbols that lead you to some teeny-tiny footnote disclaimer—pause to ponder what the ad is really telling you.

It’s important as now that we’re in flu season, we’re seeing more and more homeopathic ‘remedy’ ads popping up with questionable claims and the telling footnote or two.

The 12-dagger ad above is actually a recent ad for Fastin, “the world’s most advanced weight loss aid ever developed!†” (there’s that dagger!). The ad appeared in Self magazine. And yes, it has 12—no joke, twelve—daggers in it, all leading to the footnote below. Don’t believe it? They’re all circled on the actual ad above.

Just about everything but where to buy Fastin has a dagger leading you to the disclaimer (the disclaimer is reprinted below.

In fact, even the doctor’s statement has the disclaimer. And there’s another tip-off to something potentially askew: try to locate some quick background info on Dr. Mark Wright. You can’t. Oh sure, he has his own website, but try to find him on doctor rating sites like RealSelf.com, Vitals.com, Avvo.com, or HealthGrades.com. He’s not there. He’s also not showing up as

Tags: Dr. Mark Wright, false advertising, Fastin, Homeopathic remedy, Homeopathy, homeopathy-remedy-fraud, weight loss
Posted in Consumer Fraud, Drugs/Medical | 1 Comment »

Movie Madness: Lawsuit Says “Drive” didn’t Drive Enough

October 13th, 2011. By AbiK

Been to a movie lately that you thought, quite frankly, sucked?

Did you file a lawsuit over it? Or even request a refund at the box office? Probably not. But Sarah Deming from Michigan did.

Seems she saw the trailer for the movie, Drive, and subsequently put it on her “must see” list. Deming’s apparently a Fast and Furious (the movie, not the federal gun-running op), hit-the-accelerator type of gal. For most, Hollywood darling Ryan Gosling would’ve been reason enough to hit the box office. But Deming sought the action aspect, and well, unfortunately, when she saw the full movie, she was less than wowed.

Deming’s beef—there are actually a couple—was that the Drive trailer promoted a race action film—i.e., one that would have a lot of fast driving in it—but in reality, Drive had “very little driving” in it. Deming’s complaint actually stated that Drive was promoted as being like Fast and Furious but in reality it was not.

The second part of her lawsuit—which somehow seems completely off-topic from what she’s seeking damages for (i.e., allegedly misleading trailer)–states that there was “extreme gratuitous defamatory dehumanizing racism directed against members of the Jewish faith.” Something tells me the likes of Albert Brooks and Ron Perlman wouldn’t be associated with such a movie—but what do I know?

If you’ve seen the Drive trailer, it doesn’t, IMHO, make you think the movie is just going to be driving a-go-go. There’s actually this little thing called a storyline going on—and you get that from the trailer. Thinking about it now, in fact, most car action movies I recall have a bit more than the driving going on. Heck, even Speed Racer has a plot that puts the cars in “park” for large chunks of the movie.

But my perception does not equate Ms. Deming’s perception. And therein lies the crux of the matter here. Was the trailer for Drive misleading? Was it false advertising?

One has to imagine that Deming could’ve just gotten a refund (reports don’t mention whether Deming sat the whole movie out or if she got up midway through it and left the theater). But Deming is on a rant here so she’s suing. She wants her ticket refunded, and apparently an end to misleading movie trailers—whatever that really means. And, according to kcra.com, she’ll be seeking class action status on this one.

Hard to imagine that this one will really go anywhere—if it does, what’s to stop an onslaught of copycat lawsuits? And, what’s next? Read some cover notes at Barnes & Noble, buy the book, read the book, and…?

Next time, perhaps Ms. Deming should just stay home, grab her remote, and watch some NASCAR.

Tags: Class Action Lawsuit, Consumer Fraud, Drive, Drive Trailer, false advertising, Fast and Furious, Movie Trailers, Ryan Gosling, Sarah Deming
Posted in Class Action, Consumer Fraud, lawsuits | No Comments »

Bought any Rice Krispies? There’s a Rice Krispies Class Action Settlement

September 22nd, 2011. By AbiK

Kellogg’s Rice Krispies—and Cocoa Krispies—cereals are the focus of a class action lawsuit settlement. Granted, the Class Period for this lawsuit isn’t all that long: it’s for Rice Krispies or Cocoa Krispies bought between June 1, 2009 and March 1, 2010. But, as any mom with school-age kids could tell you, between bowls at breakfast and the ever-popular Rice Krispies treats (homemade, of course), there’s a good chance that a lot of folks—including you—are part of the Class for this one.

So here’s the lowdown on the Kellogg’s Rice Krispies class action settlement…

What is the Kellogg’s Rice Krispies lawsuit about?

False advertising. How? The plaintiff claimed that Kellogg Company made claims about Rice Krispies’ and Cocoa Krispies’ supporting a person’s immunity system (see pic)—without having competent clinical evidence to support the claim. (Personally, I’d be seeking other ways to boost my immunity, but what do I know…). Kellogg denies any wrongdoing, however the company and Class Representatives agreed to settle to avoid the cost of a trial.

Who is part of the Kellogg’s Rice Krispies class action?

Anyone who purchased Rice Krispies or Cocoa Krispies in the US between June 1, 2009 and March 1, 2010 is considered part of the Class.

What will I get from the Rice Krispies settlement?

A settlement fund of $2.5 million has been set up. Claimants will share in the amount left over once attorney fees and an incentive award for Class Representatives have been paid from the settlement fund.

Accordingly, Class Members may then seek reimbursement of $5 per box purchased, up to a maximum of $15 (i.e., 3 boxes) per household. As is typical with class action lawsuits, the actual amount claimant receives will depend on how many valid claims are received for this class action. If valid claims exceed the amount of money available to pay them, then each award will be reduced pro rata.

What do I need to do to be included in the Rice Krispies settlement?

You need to fill out and submit a claim form by November 16, 2011. Proof of purchase is not required (but your honesty is).

For full details on the Kellogg’s Rice Krispies and Cocoa Krispies class action lawsuit, visit www.cerealadvertisingsettlement.com.

Tags: Cocoa Krispies, false advertising, Kellogg's, Rice Krispies, Rice Krispies Class Action, Rice Krispies Class Action Settlement, Rice Krispies Immune System, Rice Krispies Lawsuit
Posted in Class Action, Consumer Fraud, Defective Products, Emerging Issues | 2 Comments »