LinkedIn

Week Adjourned: 10.9.15 – Subaru, Scottrade, LinkedIn

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Subaru Flipping You One? Just when you though it might be safe to get back into your car…guess what? Not if you own a 2006 Subaru B9 Tribeca, apparently. A defective automobile class action lawsuit has been filed against Subaru of America Inc, alleging certain of its vehicles have a design defect that causes the hood to fly open when the affected vehicles are traveling at high speed. This can result in cracked windshields and danger to the drivers, in addition to diminishing the value of the vehicles.

Filed by Sharion Hadley, the Subaru complaint asserts that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has 17 complaints about the hood of the 2006 Subaru B9 Tribeca unlocking and smashing the windshield while being driven. However, Hadley claims Subaru won’t do anything to fix the alleged defect.

“Despite longstanding knowledge of the defect through public complaints and internal testing, Subaru has failed to take responsibility for the problem, refusing to issue a recall and denying consumer requests to pay for necessary repairs occasioned by the defect,” the complaint states.

In the complaint, Hadley states that the hood of her vehicle flew open in May while she was driving at approximately 65 miles per hour, cracking her windshield and dislodging the rear view mirror. She goes on to state that she was unable to see the road because of the broken hood. She did manage to navigate the car to the side of the road, where she was helped by passing drivers.

According to the lawsuit, Hadley contacted Subaru about the accident, but the automaker refused to take responsibility for the alleged defect, wouldn’t compensate her for the cost of repairs and refused to even look at the vehicle.

The lawsuit contends that this incident is not isolated. While numerous consumers have complained online about the same alleged defect, the NHTSA has 17 complaints about the 2006 B9 Tribeca describing a similar experience to that which Hadley experienced.

“It is well known that car manufacturers, in general, and Subaru in particular, closely monitor NHTSA complaints, so there can be no doubt that Subaru has long known of this issue from the NHTSA website,” the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit accuses Subaru of actively concealing the alleged defect, and of failing to disclose that the alleged defect would diminish the value of the vehicle.

The lawsuit seeks certification of a national and Pennsylvania class of drivers who bought or leased the 2006 Subaru B9 Tribeca. She said at least 18,000 of the class vehicles were sold by Subaru.

The complaint asserts claims for violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, breach of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of express warranty and common law fraud, among others.

The case is Hadley v. Subaru of America Inc., case number 1:15-cv-07210, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

It Really is Groundhog Day! Another data breach class action lawsuit has been filed this week—who’s counting anymore? This one, against the discount brokerage house Scottrade Inc, alleging the company failed to take adequate action to protect its customer’s data. Scottrade announced last week that between late 2013 and early 2014 approximately 4.6 million users had their personal information, possibly including their Social Security numbers, targeted in a data breach.

Filed by plaintiff Stephen Hine, the lawsuit states that Scottrade was negligent in failing to exercise reasonable security precautions and failing to comply with industry standards for storing confidential and private personal information. Further, the lawsuit alleges Scottrade’s email notification to customers affected by the breach was “woefully inadequate and vague,” given that their information might be sold on the black market or used in stock scams and other financial frauds.

Specifically, the lawsuit states, “Scottrade’s actions and/or omissions occurred despite prior warnings, including prior incursions of their network by third parties, who conducted fraudulent stock trades using Scottrade’s customer’s accounts, and even fines from government agencies concerning its system’s security procedures and oversight.” Seriously, how can anyone still be caught with their digital trouser down anymore?

The plaintiff contends that had Scottrade heeded warnings and taken necessary precautions, the data breach could have been prevented or, at a minimum, predicted it much sooner and reduced the harm to its customers.

In its announcement, Scottrade stated that those responsible for the attack appeared to have targeted names and mailing addresses, but it couldn’t rule out the possibility that email addresses and other “sensitive data” had been stolen.

The lawsuit goes on to allege that many of the customers affected won’t receive email notifications from Scottrade as they have changed email addresses or used a different email address. Furthermore, the emails sent are materially misleading and don’t fully disclose the scope of the threat to Scottrade’s customers, the lawsuit states.

“The database accessed, however, contains, among other things, Social Security numbers, email addresses and other ‘sensitive data’ (which is not defined in the email),” the complaint states. “It is highly unlikely that the hackers, having access to the above information, would only take the affected customer’s name and email address.”

According to the complaint, as a financial institution and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission registered broker dealer, Scottrade had a “special duty” to exercise reasonable care to protect and secure the personal and financial information of its customers.

“Scottrade should have known to take precaution to secure its customers’ data, given its special duty, especially in light of the recent data breaches affecting numerous retailers and financial institutions, as well as from prior direct breaches of its secured networks,” the complaint states. You think ?

The case is Hine v. Scottrade Inc., case number 3:15-cv-02213, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

Top Settlements

LinkedIn will pay to play… The social media platform has agreed to pony up $13 million in a settlement, that could end a Telephone Consumer protection Act (TCPA) class action lawsuit they’re facing over spamming its members.

Specifically, the LinkedIn lawsuit targeted LinkedIn’s ‘Add Connections’, a service that allowed members to import contacts from their email accounts. LinkedIn then sent those contacts an email, according to court documents.

While the court found in favor of the plaintiffs, stating that members did not consent to LinkedIn sending reminder emails to recipients of pending invitations, the company denies any wrongdoing.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, people who signed up for LinkedIn between September 17, 2011, and October 31, 2014, can submit a claim, this includes people who are no longer members.

The payment amount for members of approved claims will depend upon how many claims are submitted but could range from $10 to $1,500. To learn more about the settlement, visit: http://www.addconnectionssettlement.com. Check it out!!

Ok—that’s it for this week folks—see you at the bar! And Happy Columbus Day!

Week Adjourned: 8.22.14 – Gap, Walgreens, LinkedIn

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements featuring lawsuits involving the Gap, Walgreens and LinkedIn.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Mind the Gap—the Credibility Gap that is. This week, two separate consumer fraud class action lawsuits were filed against The Gap Inc., Banana Republic LLC and Saks Fifth Avenue LLC in a California court alleging they deceived customers as to the quality and supposed savings of outlet store items.

According to the lawsuit against The Gap and Banana Republic, which The Gap owns, the company hides a “Factory Store” label with three squares on it, on clothing it sells at its outlets. The lawsuit claims that the label indicates the clothes were made specifically for the outlet and are of inferior quality to those sold in the traditional Gap and Banana Republic retail outlets.

In the Saks Fifth Avenue lawsuit, plaintiffs allege the retailer uses a manufactured “Market Price” inducing the consumer to believe that they would pay a higher price for the price at a traditional Saks Fifth Avenue store, in addition to putting the lower outlet price on the items, creating the impression that consumers are getting a discount.

However, the lawsuit contends that items sold at Saks Off 5th clearance stores were made specifically for the outlet. Named plaintiff Tova Malik says it was this perceived price savings that led her to purchase items from a Saks Off Fifth store at an outlet mall in Camarillo, California.

“Defendant labels its Saks Off 5th clothing with a tag that shows a markedly lower price from the “Market Price,” which corresponds to the price that appears to be used in traditional Saks Fifth Avenue retail stores,” the lawsuit states. “Plaintiff was lured in by this large price difference and as a result purchased items of clothing and accessories from defendant’s Saks Off 5th in July of 2014.”

The plaintiffs for the Gap and Saks Fifth Avenue lawsuits are represented by Michael Louis Kelly, Behram V. Parekh and Heather M. Baker of Kirtland & Packard LLP.

The cases are Malik v. Saks Fifth Avenue LLC, case number BC555134; and Rubenstein v. The Gap Inc., case number BC555010, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

A Prescription for Walgreens: Pay the overtime. Yup. This week the national pharmacy chain got hit with an unpaid overtime class action lawsuit filed in California federal court by pharmacists alleging the company violated California labor law and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to pay them minimum wage and overtime for training hours and time spent maintaining their uniforms.

According to the Walgreens lawsuit, lead plaintiff Debra Short was a nonexempt pharmacist with the company from September 1997 to April 2012. During that period, Walgreens denied its pharmacists overtime hours for training and failing to pay them all of their owed wages upon termination.

“As a result of defendants’ unlawful conduct, plaintiff and the other class members have suffered damages in an amount, subject to proof, to the extent they were not paid the full amount of wages earned during each pay period during the applicable limitations period, including overtime wages,” the complaint states.

Under the California Labor Code, if an employer does not maintain its own employee uniforms, then it is obligated to pay employees who must wear uniforms for one hour per week of uniform maintenance. According to the lawsuit, Walgreens failed to pay its pharmacists minimum wage for uniform maintenance time each week.

Further, the lawsuit claims that Walgreens failed to pay its pharmacists for class training time, which required at-home work and other training, all of which was necessary so the pharmacists would become certified in immunization and CPR administration.

Short also alleges that Walgreen’s pharmacists are required to work more than seven days in a row without rest days and that the company fails to compensate them for all of their wages earned upon termination of their employment, in violation of California Labor Code.

Heads up folks—the lawsuit is seeking certification of five subclasses, including one in California comprising pharmacists who were employed over the past four years and one comprising pharmacists across the country over the past three years. Short is seeking payment of all unpaid wages and damages.

The case is Short v. Walgreen Co. , case number 3:14-cv-03747, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Top Settlements

So LinkedIn may be about to settle a data breach class action lawsuit for $1.25 million.

Plaintiffs in a federal class action lawsuit are seeking approval of the settlement, potentially ending the action which stems from a 2012 data breach of LinkedIn Corp. The lawsuit claims the social media site misled customers about its data protection policies in connection with the data breach.

In the lawsuit, lead plaintiff Khalilah Gilmore-Wright claimed she and other class members purchased premium LinkedIn accounts believing that the company provided industry-standard security. However, LinkedIn’s security was in fac outdated and insufficient, resulting in a massive data breach in June 2012 in which a hacker posted 6.5 million user passwords onto the Internet.

According to the terms of the proposed LinkedIn settlement, if approved, LinkedIn would set up a $1.25 million fund from which class members could receive as much as $50. The class would include everyone who paid a fee to LinkedIn for a premium subscription between March 2006 and June 2012. Gilmore-Wright would receive $7,500. There are approximately 800,000 premium subscribers.

The case is In re: LinkedIn User Privacy Litigation, case number 5:12-cv-03088, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Ok Folks—time to adjourn for the week. Have a fab weekend–see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 6.22.12 – Adidas, LinkedIn, Paxil False Advertising

A weekly wrap of top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending June 22, 2012. This week’s top stories include Adidas, LinkedIn, Paxil False Advertising

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Barefoot Blues? Adidas is facing a potential consumer fraud class action lawsuit. Filed this week, the lawsuit alleges that Adidas adiPure training shoes, which capitalize on the “barefoot running” fitness craze, are falsely marketed.

Filed by plaintiff Joseph Rocco, from New York, the adiPure class action lawsuit claims Rocco bought a $90 pair of adiPure shoes that did not deliver the increased training efficiency and decreased risk of injury promised in advertisements.

Instead, the lawsuit claims, the shoes actually increase the risk for bruising and foot damage, due to their decreased padding and other structural differences from more traditional running shoes, the lawsuit states. Rocco said he and other customers were never warned about the potential hazards and that, as a result, he suffered compound fractures after training in the shoes. Yikes!

The lawsuit seeks to certify a class of everyone who purchased adiPure shoes since they were launched in August 2011. Rocco is seeking a refund for the shoes, as well as statutory damages.

Password Compromised? LinkedIn Corp is facing an internet privacy class action lawsuit resulting from a recent hacking that compromised some 6.5 million registered users’ passwords, which reportedly is less than 5 percent of LinkedIn’s user base.

The LinkedIn lawsuit was filed by Katie Szpyrka, who has been a registered account holder with LinkedIn since 2010, and who paid $26.95 per month to upgrade to a “premium” LinkedIn account.

The lawsuit claims LinkedIn “failed to properly safeguard its users’ digitally stored personally identifiable information including email addresses, passwords, and login credentials.” The lawsuit also states, “Through its Privacy Policy, LinkedIn promises its users that ‘all information that [they] provide [to LinkedIn] will be protected with industry standard protocols and technology. In direct contradiction to this promise, LinkedIn failed to comply with basic industry standards by maintaining millions of users’ PII in its servers’ databases in a weak encryption format, and without implementing other crucial security measures.” This, the suit alleges, is in violation of the company’s user agreement and privacy policy.

Top Settlements

Paxil False Advertising Settlement. Were you adversely affected by Paxil? A preliminary settlement has been reached in a Paxil class action lawsuit, and if approved, will provide money to California residents who were 18 years old or older and who paid for any portion of the price of the prescription antidepressant while living in California from January 14, 1999 through January 1, 2003, and who qualify under the settlement (these people are called “Class Members”).

If you’re included, you may ask for a payment, or you can exclude yourself from, or object to, the settlement. The Superior Court for the State of California will have a hearing to decide whether to approve the settlement so that payments can be issued.

The lawsuit claims that GlaxoSmithKline falsely advertised and promoted Paxil as being non-habit forming or non-addictive and that GlaxoSmithKline’s advertisements and promotional materials failed to disclose the risk of symptoms from stopping or discontinuing Paxil. GlaxoSmithKline denies each of these allegations.

What Can I Get from the Paxil Settlement?

The Paxil settlement provides monetary compensation as follows: a full refund of the actual Out-of-Pocket Expenses of claimants who purchased Paxil during the Class Period and who have valid documentary Proof of Purchase, provided that the total amount of payments to claimants with documented Proof of Purchase cannot exceed $8,500,000.00.

For claimants without Proof of Purchase, GlaxoSmithKline shall pay actual Out-of-Pocket Expenses up to $80.00 per claimant, provided that the total amount paid to claimants without Proof of Purchase cannot exceed $500,000.00. GlaxoSmithKline will also: (1) make a charitable contribution of $1,000,000.00 to be shared equally by four California mental health charities; (2) agree to certain limits on any future advertising for Paxil; and (3) include certain information about Paxil on its corporate website.

How Can I File a Paxil Settlement Claim?

You must complete the Claim Form, which you can obtain at CApaxilclassaction.com, and mail it no later than October 10, 2012 to the address on the form. Whether you receive a payment and the amount you get depends on whether you have a valid claim, how much Paxil you paid for, whether or not you have valid Proof of Purchase, and how many valid claims are filed.

How to Opt Out of or Object to the Paxil Settlement

If you don’t want a payment from the Paxil settlement, or if you don’t want to be legally bound by the settlement, you must exclude yourself by October 10, 2012, or you won’t be able to sue, or continue to sue, GlaxoSmithKline about the legal claims in this case. If you exclude yourself, you cannot get a payment from this settlement. If you stay in the settlement, you may choose to object to it, if you do so by October 10, 2012. You may both object and still participate in the settlement and receive money. The detailed notice explains how to exclude yourself or object.

The Court will hold a hearing in this case, called Grair, et al. v. GlaxoSmithKline, Inc., Case No. BC 288536, to consider whether to approve the settlement and a request by the lawyers representing the Class for fees and expenses. You may ask to appear and speak at the hearing, but you don’t have to.

For more information, go to A detailed notice is available at CApaxilclassaction.com or write to the Paxil Settlement Administratorc/o GCG, P.O. Box 9839Dublin, OH 43017-5739.

Ok –That’s a wrap. See you at the bar!