FTC

Week Adjourned: 5.18.12 – Tetley Tea, Skechers, Verizon

The weekly wrap on top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending May 18, 2012. This week’s top stories: Tetley Tea, Skechers and Verizon.

Top Class Actions

Actually, this week it’s Top Consumer Fraud Class Actions—because false advertising class action lawsuits seem to be the theme right now…

What’s Brewing at Tetley Tea? Let’s take Tetley Tea as an example—as of this week, the Tetley Tea is facing a federal consumer fraud class action lawsuit over allegations it falsely advertises the health benefits of its tea products, specifically that they are an “excellent” or “natural” source of antioxidants.

The Tetley Tea lawsuit states, “Tetley utilizes improper antioxidant, nutrient content, and health claims that have been expressly condemned by the FDA in numerous enforcement actions and warning letters” to other companies that made similar antioxidant claims, such as Unilever’s Lipton Tea.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all consumers in California who purchased Tetley Tea’s Classic Blend Black Tea, British Blend Black Tea, Pure Green Tea, Iced Tea Blend Tea, and/or Iced Tea Mix Tea within the last four years.

The lawsuit is seeking damages, restitution and other bits and pieces, for alleged claims of unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business acts and practices; misleading and deceptive advertising; untrue advertising; and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Act and Beverly-Song Act. That’s some laundry list.

Top Settlements

Couple of big preliminary settlements on—you guessed it—consumer fraud/false advertising class action lawsuits to tell you about this week…

Skechers Sketchy Health Claims. This one, all over the media, implies that Skechers may be guilty of sketchy health claims. At least the FTC thinks so. But not the shoe manufacturer, of course. Nevertheless, Skechers USA has agreed to pay $45M to resolve allegations brought by the US and state governments that it deceived customers about the health benefits of its Shape-ups athletic shoes.

The allegations center on claims that the shoe manufacturer’s athletic toning shoes help people lose weight and strengthen their buttocks and legs. Skechers aren’t the first athletic shoe maker to face penalties for their advertising claims—Reebok also got hit and settled for $25 million, but hey, according to news reports, these shoes are big business. Skechers reportedly made $1.4 billion in 2009.

According to a statement by the US Federal Trade Commission, Skechers, based in Manhattan Beach, California, also made false claims in advertising for its Resistance Runner, Tone-ups and Toners shoes.

According to a report by Bloomberg, the ads for Skechers that were challenged by the FTC include one for Shape-ups that told consumers they could “get in shape without setting foot in a gym,” according to the statement. The FTC alleges the company made unsupported claims that the shoes would provide more weight loss and muscle toning than regular fitness shoes.

You may be a class member if you purchased eligible Skechers toning shoes since August 1, 2008, with limited exclusions. The Court has not yet ruled on whether the settlement should be preliminarily approved. The Court may not grant preliminary approval or may require certain changes to the proposed settlement.

If the Court grants preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, you will have rights which you may wish to exercise, including rights to opt-out of the settlement or object.

Under the terms of the preliminary settlement, Skechers has agreed to provide refunds to consumers who bought the following Eligible Shoes as new since August 1, 2008:

Skechers Shape-ups rocker bottom shoes

Skechers Resistance Runner rocker bottom shoes

Skechers Shape-ups Toners/Trainers

Skechers Tone-ups with podded outsoles

Skechers Tone-ups non-podded sandals

Skechers boots

Skechers clogs

Skechers trainers (Tone-ups, non-podded sole)

The total refund you can receive from the Skechers shape-ups settlement will depend on how many Eligible Shoes you purchased from August 1, 2008, onwards, as well as the total number of valid claim forms submitted by other Class Members.

Possible reimbursements could be:

$40 – $80 for Shape-ups;

$27 – $50 for podded sole shoes;

$20 – $40 for Tone-ups (non-podded sole); and

$42 – $80 for Resistance Runners

To find out more about the Skechers settlement, whether or not you could qualify as a class member, and to download forms, visit http://www.skecherssettlement.com.

Verizon Calling —Verizon Land Lines that is. A preliminary settlement has been reached in a consumer fraud class action pending against Verizon. This time, it’s not health claims that are the issue—but third-party charges.

If you were billed for third-party charges on your Verizon landline telephone bill, you may be entitled to a payment from this class action settlement, if the settlement is approved.

The Settlement will provide for payments to all class members who properly submit Claim Forms by November 15, 2012. The payments will be either $40 in the case of approved Flat Payment Claims or the full amount (i.e., 100%) of unauthorized Third-Party Charges you paid in the case of approved Full Payment Claims. Some class members may have a claim for less than $40. Class counsel contends that some class members may have a claim for hundreds of dollars, or more.

You must submit a claim form in order to qualify for payment. This is the only way to get a payment. You may submit a Flat Payment Claim for $40 or a Full Payment Claim for 100% of all unauthorized charges you paid. To file a claim, you must complete a Claim Form either online or download a Claim Form, print it out and mail it to the Settlement Administrator by November 15, 2012. You can find the claims forms by visiting www.verizonthirdpartybillingsettlement.com.

The Court in charge of this case has given its preliminary approval to the Settlement but still has to decide whether to give final approval to the Settlement. Payments will be made if the Court gives final approval to the Settlement and after appeals, if any, are resolved.

OKee dokee. Enough business as usual—it’s the weekend! See you at the bar—where the health benefits are obvious and require no advertising…

Week Adjourned: 3.2.12 (DePuy Hip Impant, Skechers Toners, OC Register)

A weekly wrap of top class action lawsuits and lawsuit settlements for the week ending March 2, 2012.

Top Class Actions

Do you have—or know someone who has—a DePuy metal-on-metal hip replacement? You may be interested in this—a class action lawsuit—filed against DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., the manufacturer of metal-on-metal hip replacement implants. The lawsuit claims the devices cause “irreparable harm from undiagnosed metal disease.” And the purpose of the DePuy class action lawsuit is to get DePuy to pay for patients’ ongoing medical monitoring, which involves yearly orthopedic examinations, MRIs and blood and urine tests, according to the lawsuit.

Medical monitoring, you ask? Well, the science isn’t pretty, but the facts speak for themselves. According to an investigative report published in BMJ, formerly known as British Medical Journal, thousands of hip implants made by DePuy Orthopaedics have leaked high levels of toxic cobalt and chromium ions. These toxic metals have destroyed patients’ muscle and bone, and will potentially leave some patients with long-term disability, the study says.

“Metal-on-metal hip prostheses like the DePuy ASR XL can and do create three to five-fold increases in blood levels of the heavy metals chromium and cobalt,” the lawsuit states. “Toxicity from these metals causes metallosis, a disease that destroys the tissues surrounding the artificial joint. Left unresolved, metallosis creates irreparable harm to the patient from the progressive destruction of the joint tissues.”According to the court document, other health issues related to failure of the ASR XL hip implant include “immediate irreparable harm from undiagnosed metal disease and the effect it has on the joint, even after revision and on other targeted organs, such as the brain, heart, liver, and kidneys.”

Sadly, there’s more. In addition to risk of infection and blood clots in a second implant surgery, revisions will not last as long as the 20 to 30 years the original hip implants were expected to last.

The BMJ report cites longstanding “evidence of risk from metal-on-metal hips, the manufacturers’ inadequate response, and how regulatory bodies failed to give doctors and patients the information they need to make informed decisions.”

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned in 2011 about metal ions that shed minute particles of the metal implant that migrate into the bloodstream and damage bone or tissue surrounding the implant and joint.

BMJ quotes an internal DePuy memo from July 2005 that says, “In addition to inducing potential changes in immune function, there has been concern for some time that wear debris may be carcinogenic… One study suggested threefold risk of lymphoma and leukemia 10 years after joint replacement.”

“So-called ‘Silent Metal Disease,’ is found in upwards of 30% of patients with no symptoms. Cobalt and chromium poisoning can only be diagnosed promptly through a program of universal and comprehensive monitoring of the entire population of ASR XL patients,” according to the lawsuit.

BMJ says it’s likely there are more than 500,000 “at risk large diameter” metal-on-metal hips implanted in American patients since 2003 which require monitoring.

The lawsuit is asking that a class be certified and that DePuy be ordered to establish a fund to pay the costs of medical monitoring over the lifetime of all ASR XL Acetabular System hip implant patients. Those costs include annual blood and urine tests and medical imaging such as ultrasound and MRI examinations.

These shoes were made for walking–or not–according to this class action. This isn’t the first time we’ve seen complaints from consumers over reportedly false claims made by toning shoes manufacturers. This week, a consumer fraud class-action lawsuit was filed on behalf of consumers bought Skechers, alleging misleading advertising influenced people’s decision to buy the company’s “Shape-Ups” toning shoes.

The Skechers “Shape-Ups” toning sneaker class action lawsuit seeks money damages for consumers who paid a “premium price” for Skechers “Shape-Ups” based on TV, print and Internet ads that touted the toning shoes’ health benefits.

In reality, the complaint alleges, the shoes provide no additional health benefits. Instead, they pose a risk of injury due to their pronounced rocker bottom sole, according to the complaint.

The lawsuit seeks money damages and an order that would stop Skechers from “deceptive and unlawful advertising.”

According to the lawsuit, the shoes are marketed, sold and promoted by Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., and its subsidiaries.

The complaint states that Skechers is currently being investigated for its toning shoes marketing claims by the Federal Trade Commission. In September, the FTC reached a $25 million settlement with Reebok for making similar fitness claims about its own brand of toning shoes, the lawsuit states. Footwear News estimates that Skechers will face a fine of $75 million.

In particular, the lawsuit alleges that Skechers promoted that its “Shape-Ups” would provide health benefits “without setting foot in a gym.”

However, the plaintiffs claim, the company has produced no valid scientific proof that the toning shoes provide any greater benefit than regular athletic shoes.

The complaint cites an American Council on Exercise study that concluded, “There is simply no evidence to support the claims that these shoes will help wearers exercise more intensely, burn more calories or improve muscle strength and tone.”

However, the lawsuit alleges, the shoes do pose health risks. Because the rocker bottom soles create instability and change gait mechanics, they can trigger chronic injuries and cause wearers to fall and suffer injuries, the plaintiffs claim.

An attorney representing the plaintiffs notes a May 2011 Consumer Reports article stating that toning shoes had produced more injury reports than any other product in its database. The reported injuries included tendinitis and foot, leg and hip pain. The more severe reported injuries included broken bones. Looks like it’s back to the gym after all…

Top Settlements

Remember Mayberry RFD? “America’s Happiest Hamlet,” according to the trailer. Well, there’s something of that sentiment about this settlement. Maybe because the good guys won after all. Finally, after almost 10 years of litigation, a settlement in the Orange County Register unpaid wages class action lawsuit (Gonzalez, et al. v. Freedom Communications, Inc., et al., Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 03CC08756) has been reached.

In the settlement, the directors and officers of Freedom Communications, the parent of the OC Register, agreed to pay $15.5 million—in addition to an earlier $14.5 million paid in 2010—to resolve the paper carriers’ class action against the OC Register. The final $30 million settlement brings closure to litigation that had been ongoing for nearly a decade.

The California labor class action case was initially filed in the Orange County Superior Court in 2003 and then proceeded through the litigation process, culminating in seven weeks of jury trial before it was settled in January of 2009 for $38 million. While the plaintiff newspaper carriers won the battle, Freedom filed bankruptcy on September 1, 2009 and sought to eliminate this obligation through bankruptcy one week before the agreed payment date.

OK—Happy Friday everyone—See you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 9.30.11

This week’s wrap on Class Action lawsuits and Settlements, September 30, 2011

Top Class Actions

NCAA Concussion Lawsuit Filed. Again. It’s about time! Two former college football players who suffer from the residual effects of head injuries filed an class-action lawsuit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), accusing the governing body of neglecting to protect student-athletes from concussions and their aftermath.

The class action lawsuit accuses the NCAA of turning a blind eye to coaches who teach players to use their heads for tackling, failing to establish a NCAA-wide system for screening head injuries and shirking its financial obligations to injured student-athletes who need medical treatment after they’ve left college.

The case alleges that despite a mounting body of scientific evidence linking concussions to depression, dementia and early-onset Alzheimer’s, among a host of other medical problems, the NCAA has failed to enforce the safety measures it introduced in the 1970s. The lawsuit further claims that NCAA football coaches continue to encourage players to use tackling methods that promote head trauma, including helmet-to-helmet hits. The harshest penalty ever imposed on coaches who teach this tactic was a letter of reprimand, according to the complaint.

The lead plaintiffs in the suit are former University of Central Arkansas wide receiver Derek K. Owens and former Northwestern University offensive lineman Alex Rucks, who say their lives have been fundamentally altered as the result of brain trauma that could have been prevented.

Owens, 22, was hit in the head from behind while taking part in a voluntary practice the summer before his freshman season. According to the complaint, Owens never received medical attention from the team despite feeling dizzy, having difficulty seeing and being unable to drive home. The 2008 incident was the first of numerous head injuries for Owens, who was named Arkansas’ Top Offensive Player and one of the state’s top Scholar-Athletes his senior year of high school.

The second week of his first season, a linebacker knocked Owens unconscious in practice, according to the lawsuit. UCA’s trainers told Owens’ roommates he had a “severe concussion” and to wake him up every couple of hours. He sat out for several weeks until he was cleared to return to the practice team. During a 2010 game, Owens was returning a punt when he was leveled by an opposing player, who later called the play “the highlight of his career,” according to a story in the Tulsa World. Owens experienced memory loss, headaches, an inability to concentrate, anxiety and depression. His grades plummeted despite his once-sterling academic record. In May of 2011, he dropped out of school and football as a result of the debilitating effects of repeated head trauma.

Rucks, who played at Northwestern from 2004 to 2008, was never formally diagnosed with a brain injury, but suffered numerous blows to his head that led to symptoms consistent with a concussion. The NCAA never tested or followed-up with Rucks to determine whether he’d been concussed, or if he was experiencing post-concussion syndrome, the lawsuit alleges.

Since his playing days, Owens has suffered from the symptoms of post-concussion syndrome, including the loss of concentration and memory, according to the complaint.

The lawsuit alleges the NCAA never encouraged football players to report or complain about their physical well-being, nor does it educate players about head-injury prevention or the telltale symptoms of a concussion.

The lawsuit, a class action, seeks to represent current or former NCAA football players who have medical or team records indicating they sustained a concussion(s) or suffered concussion-like symptoms while playing football at an NCAA school, and who have, since ending their NCAA careers, developed chronic headaches, dizziness, dementia, Alzheimer’s disease or other physical and mental problems as a result of the concussion and have incurred medical expenses from such injuries.

All class members would be notified that they may require frequent medical monitoring. NCAA-wide return-to-play guidelines would be established. The NCAA would mandate that team physicians learn to detect concussions and sub-concussions, as well as determining when a player is at an increased risk of harm. It also seeks to redress the intangible losses suffered by these class members.

Top Settlements

Asbestos Mesothelioma Lawsuit Settlement. Another asbestos settlement to report this week. A jury in Orleans Parish Civil District Court has ruled that three companies are liable for $7.55 million in damages for exposing former employee Thomas Kenney to asbestos. Kenny has been diagnosed with malignant asbestos mesothelioma.

Mr. Kenney sued Rexam Beverage Can Co., John Crane Inc and Haveg Inc, among others, claiming that he was exposed to asbestos while working in a canning factory and a refinery in the 60s and 70s. The jury hearing his case found John Crane, Rexam and Haveg liable for Kenny’s asbestos exposure and Rexam liable for the dangerous levels of asbestos, which was located in its canning factory in New Orleans’ Mid-City neighborhood. The old canning factory has since been refurbished and converted into an apartment complex.

Reebok to Atone for its Toning Shoes Claims: While the jury may be out on whether or not these shoes actually do tone your butt and abs, the Federal Trade Commission isn’t wasting time making up its mind. Reebok has agreed to pay $25M to settle charges brought by the Federal Trade Commission alleging that the athletic shoe manufacturer falsely advertised its “toning” shoes, making claims that the shoes could measurably strengthen the muscles in the legs, thighs and buttocks.

Among the claims the FTC found offensive–and possibly downright misleading—are that the EasyTone footwear is proven to increase the strength and tone of your gluteus maximus muscles by 28% (really?) and give you 11% more strength in your hamstring and calf muscles—(really)—compared with regular walking shoes—whatever those are.

The FTC settlement is the first, and results from its investigation into the advertising claims made by Reebok. However, other companies such as New Balance and Sketchers have also aced lawsuits over their advertising claims.

Ok—That’s it for this week. See you at the bar!