Consumer Advocate Legal Update : Class Action Lawyers & Attorneys : Khorrami Pollard & Abir Law Firm : Mass Torts, Products Liability

The plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit filed against Ticketmaster have submitted a proposed a settlement to the Los Angeles Superior Court. The lawsuit,Curt Schlesinger et al. v. Ticketmaster, was filed by Ticketmaster customers who claim Ticketmaster wrongfully charged customers excessive UPS delivery fees and/or order processing fees in connection with ticket sales.
Thecomplaint alleges that Ticketmaster violated the California Business & Professions Code by engaging in unfair and deceptive practices.

The “Ticketmaster Fees” section found on the Ticketmaster FAQ webpage says that the order processing fee “…covers the cost to fulfill your ticket request when you purchase the tickets online or by phone.” The charge also includes “services, such as taking and maintaining your order on our ticketing systems, arranging for shipping and/or coordinating with the box office will call…”

The class plaintiffs claim that the order processing fee was deceptive because it was unrelated to the actual cost of processing tickets. According to the complaint, the fee was a “profit generator designed to maximize Ticketmaster’s overall profit by obtaining bottom-line dollar amount on deals with its clients, and had no known connection to the actual ticket fulfillment costs.”
The class plaintiffs also assert that the UPS delivery fees charged by Ticketmaster were deceptive because Ticketmaster marked up the amount it actually paid to UPS and pocketed the difference.
Ticketmaster and its parent company, Live Nation, deny any wrongdoing and the proposed settlement has yet to be approved by the court.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

An Iowa judge has certified a class action filed on behalf of about 300 current and former residents of two Des Moines apartment buildings who say their landlord failed to combat a growing bedbug infestation.

The suit claimed the buildings for elderly and disabled residents first experienced a bedbug problem in late 2007, the Des Moines Register reports. Residents have complained they had to trash infested furniture and couldn’t move out because landlords and relatives shunned them. “Everybody sleeps on the floor,” one resident said in an interview last year.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Second District Court of Appeal, sitting here in Los Angeles, recently upheld a punitive award of $13.8 million against Philip Morris in a suit alleging the corporation “defraud[ed the plantiff] by deceptively marketing an addictive and lethal product in the years before the government required warning labels on cigarette packages.”

The jury awarded the plaintiff, the late Betty Bullock of Newport Beach, $850,000 in compensatory damages, making the punitive award just over 16 times that award, which Philip Morris maintains is “constitutionally excessive.” At the same time, Philip Morris reported over $6.3 billion in profits in 2010, making the punitive part of the award approximately 0.0460% of its yearly profits last year.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1996 that punitive damage awards, intended to punish Defendants and deter similar conduct in the future, may violate Due Process if the award proves “grossly excessive.” (BMW, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 562) In order to make that determination, the Supreme Court considers several factors, including but not limited to, the reprehensibility of the Defendant’s conduct, the ratio to actual damages and the financial position of the defendant (Id. At 589-593).

Philip Morris is expected to appeal the decision to the California Supreme Court.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a New York Times article, it was announced that the Justice Department plans to intervene in a whistle-blower lawsuit charging that one of the nation’s largest for-profit college companies, the Education Management Corporation, defrauded the government by illegally paying recruiters based on the number of students they enrolled, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing on Monday.

This is the first time prosecutors have joined such a case, one of dozens in recent years that accuse the for-profit college industry of illegal practices devised to increase federal student aid revenue.

The company, which enrolls nearly 150,000 students, operates several career-college chains, including the Art Institute, Argosy University, Brown Mackie College and South University.

EDMC, 40 percent of which is owned by Goldman Sachs, said in its securities filing that its compensation plan for recruiters did not violate the law, and that it would “vigorously defend itself.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Apple is facing a class-action lawsuit from parents alleging the company lets minors purchase virtual goods in app games without parental approval.

Though Apple recently changed its policy to require passwords each time an in-app transaction is made, the lawsuit contends that Apple continues to profit unfairly from the sale of in-app goods. These games, downloaded for free, are known as "freemium" games. They often offer the opportunity to purchase virtual currency, that, despite the silly names, cost real money.

"The targeting of children by Apple and inducing them to purchase without the knowledge or authorization of their parents, millions of dollars of Game Currency is unlawful exploitation in the extreme," the complaint says.

Garen Meguerian, who filed the suit, found that his 9-year-old daughter had purchased around $200 in virtual goods from free games including "Zombie Cafe" and "City Story," without his knowledge.

"Such games are designed to induce purchases," the complaint says. "These games are highly addictive, designed deliberately so, and tend to compel children playing them to purchase large quantities of Game Currency, amounting to as much as $100 per purchase or more."

At issue is Apple's complicity in the sale of these goods. The suit alleges that Apple is deliberately exploiting minors to make millions of dollars.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

- Wal-Mart Lawsuit Crosses Competition Lines in Attempt to Avoid Largest Job Discrimination Class Action , on the Fair Employment Legal Update blog.

- Not so Hip! Depuy intentionally Delayed Recall, on Product Liability Legal Update blog

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

- Ad Firm Publicis Groupe hit with 100M Discrimination Suit:  It is the latest in a series of lawsuits alleging discrimination against women by major companies operating in the U.S.

- Rare fractures Linked to Drugs for Weak Bones: An effort to restrict the use of the bone drug Fosamax, saying extended use can lead to femur fractures

- Toyota Recalls: A summary of Toyota's vehicle recalls since the beginning of 2011.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A recent ruling by the California Supreme Court has unleashed a rash of lawsuits against big retailers that ask their customers to provide zip codes when making purchases with a credit card.

Lawyers representing store customers filed lawsuits last week against Best Buy Co., Coach Inc., Nordstrom Inc. and Macy's Inc., among other retailers.

The lawsuits come on the heels of a Feb. 10 ruling by California's highest court that found Williams-Sonoma Inc. violated the state's credit-card law by asking a customer for her zip code when making a purchase in 2008. The customer sued the home-goods retailer, contending that it used the zip code to determine her address, which is now contained in the company's database.

Stores regularly mine customer data as a way to measure buying habits and target promotions. They also sometimes sell the information to other companies.

Companies that violate the state law face fines of $250 for the first violation and as much as $1,000 for each subsequent violation. Plaintiffs in the cases are seeking those penalty fees.

The case was based on the state's 1971 credit-card law that prohibits merchants from requesting or requiring a cardholder's "personal identification information" as a condition of accepting the card for payment. The court determined that a zip code qualifies as that type of information because it is part of the cardholder's address.

Retailers routinely ask customers for their zip codes as a security measure to guard against fraudulent transactions. The practice is particularly common at gas stations, where customers often must enter their zip codes when filling up their own tanks.

After handing down its ruling, the California Supreme Court sent the Williams-Sonoma case back to a lower court, which will rule on a motion for class-action status. The lower court will also determine potential civil penalties in the case.

More information on lawsuits over zip code question can be found here and here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Food & Drug Safety:

- Avandia New Labeling & Warnings

- An Update on the Fosamax Lawsuits, Article by Thomas Sands

- Nutella sued for Misleading Health Claims, article by Greg Cragg

- Anti-Energy Drink are Hard for Critics to Swallow, article by Abi Gnanadesigan

Fair Employment:

- Calif. Bill Aims to Increase Liquidated damages for Unpaid Wages, article by Bevin Allen

- Toshiba becomes latest US Employer to Face Class Discrimination Suit, article by Brandon Brouillette

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In today's Wall Street Journal article, Google Inc. has won a key ruling in its lawsuit against the U.S. Interior Department, two months after the Web giant accused the agency of improperly favoring rival Microsoft Corp. in a contract bid to provide a new email system.

Susan Braden, a federal judge in Washington, on Monday issued a preliminary injunction that prevents the Interior Department from deciding to use Microsoft's email and collaboration tools for its 88,000 employees as part of the federal government's move to Web-based software, sometimes known as cloud computing.

In an order unsealed late Tuesday in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, Judge Braden wrote that Google had made a preliminary showing that the agency "violated the Competition in Contracting Act," which was passed in 1984 to promote "full and open competitive procedures" for federal contract bids.

A spokesman for Google, which filed the suit in October of last year, said in a statement: "As a proponent of open competition on the Internet and in the technology sector in general, we're please with the court's decision."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

We've all seen the advertising - lose weight in a manner of weeks by just taking pills or supplements.  Weight loss pills and supplements are multi-million dollar industries, so many of us have gotten sucked into these campaigns in the hope they may work.  But, as the addage goes, if it's too good to be true, it probably is.  Most over the counter diet pills do not work, and the Federal Trade Commission even launched a campaign to stop these manufacturers from making "bogus claims." 

Leptopril is an example of a diet product that promises weight loss within a manner of weeks. In its advertising, Leptopril claims that it will cause weight loss by keeping excess sugar out of the blood and preventing fat formation.  Many bloggers have denounced these claims.  See here, here, and here.  Khorrami, Pollard & Abir, LLP filed suit against the makers of Leptopril on behalf of a consumer who took the product but did not experience any weight loss. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link