Consumer Protection
Adulterated products, or defective products, deceptive advertising, unfair debt collections practices, unlawful retention of security deposits.
Macy's / Bloomingdales
Green & Noblin, P.C., has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court against Macy’s, Inc. and its wholly-owned division, Bloomingdales, Inc., for their deceptive and misleading labeling and marketing of merchandise sold at their retail stores, including outlet stores, in California and Florida, and throughout the United States. The lawsuit alleges that Macy’s misrepresented the amount of price discounts on products sold in their stores by offering steep discounts off of the original prices. Specifically, prices on merchandise were initially inflated, not representing the true price of the product, then offered on the same sales label or tag, at a significantly discounted/reduced sale price, making the consumer believe they were receiving a great bargain.
Sales of "GT'S Kombucha" and "Synergy" Drinks
Green & Noblin, P.C. served notice of a violation of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (also known as Proposition 65) on Millennium Products, Inc., the manufacturer of the drinks "GT's Kombucha" and "Synergy," as well as two retail chains where they were sold: Whole Foods and Walgreens. The notice alleges that the label on the drinks stated they might contain "a trace amount of alcohol (less than 0.5%)" while, in fact, the drinks contain significantly more, as much as 4% alcohol. An independent laboratory tested samples of the drinks purchased at a Walgreens store to confirm that the level of alcohol significantly exceeded the amount stated on the labels. Under Proposition 65, any company knowingly selling a product containing more than 0.5% alcohol must provide a clear warning to that effect on the product's label.
If you want to join the action or need more information about the case, please contact our firm.
LegalZoom.com, Inc.
A class action complaint has been filed by Green & Noblin, P.C. on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased legal documents and services from LegalZoom.com, Inc. Under California law, contracts to do business as a legal document assistant require a specific form in order to protect the public. This contract between the legal document assistant and the client must include specific language including attorney fees, the right to rescind the contract, and methods of reporting the unauthorized practice of law. This lawsuit is regarding Plaintiff’s belief that LegalZoom.com, acting as a legal document assistant, has violated the Business and Professions Code of California. If you have information concerning LegalZoom.com, Inc.’s practices, or you want to inquire about your own rights, please contact us.
HP's Notebook Computers
Green & Noblin, P.C., obtained a favorable ruling on September 26, 2008 from the California Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District, allowing a class action to move forward against Hewlett-Packard Company. The evidence before the trial court showed that, only weeks after releasing certain Pavilion notebook computers, HP received complaints of dim, dark, or flickering display screens. HP determined that the inverters in those computers were failing at unacceptably high rates, causing the displays to malfunction. HP nevertheless did not notify consumers of the defect and continued to sell the computers. Additionally, HP quoted consumers whose warranties had expired $650 to fix the problem, even though the inverter manufacturer —not HP — bore all the expenses of the repairs, and even though an inverter costs $20 or less.
The trial court certified the case as a class action in January 2007. HP thereafter filed a petition for writ review in the California Court of Appeal. HP argued that class certification was improper pursuant to a 2006 California Court of Appeal decision titled Daugherty v. American Honda Co., Inc.
In Daugherty, the plaintiffs were owners of Honda automobiles with engines that allegedly suffered from oil leaks causing severe mechanical problems. The Daugherty court found that Honda could not be liable for breach of warranty based on “latent defects” appearing after the expiration of Honda’s express warranty, and that Honda’s alleged “failure to disclose a defect that might, or might not, shorten the effective life span of an automobile part that functions precisely as warranted throughout the term of its express warranty” could not render Honda liable for fraudulent, unfair, or unlawful conduct under California’s Unfair Competition Law. HP argued that Daugherty invalidated the legal theory at the core of the plaintiffs’ case and that, as a result, a class-wide judgment would not establish HP’s liability to the entire class rendering class certification inappropriate.
The California Court of Appeal disagreed. First, the court found that the question as to whether or not Daugherty invalidated some of the class members’ claims was irrelevant. The court agreed with Green & Noblin, P.C. that class certification is a procedural determination as to whether the issues may be jointly tried based on common evidence, and not a determination as to whether an action is legally or factually meritorious. Attorney Scott Leviant, in a post about the decision on The Complex Litigator blog, wrote “I’ve been waiting for a decision that, in plain language, said success or failure of claims is irrelevant to the question of certification.”
Second, the court noted that it was “not persuaded by HP’s reliance on Daugherty for its position that a product malfunction is required in order for the product to be defective.” The Court agreed with Green & Noblin, P.C., based on another California Court of Appeal decision titled Hicks v. Kaufman & Broad Home Corp., that proof of a breach of warranty does not require proof that the product has malfunctioned, but rather that it contains an inherent defect which is substantially certain to result in a malfunction during the product’s useful life. Pursuant to Hicks and based on the evidence, the court noted that a jury could find “that the inverters in question were defective and that HP is liable for the defect.”
Prior to this decision, corporate defendants have tried to use Daugherty, with some success, to limit breach of warranty claims to situations where a product fails and a manufacturer refuses to repair or replace it during the warranty period, and to argue that a seller’s failure to disclose a known defect may never be considered unfair or fraudulent conduct violating consumer protection laws. This decision, however, recognizes that such a reading of Daugherty is far too narrow and therefore constitutes a significant victory for consumers’ rights.
The decision is titled Hewlett-Packard Company v. The Superior Court of Santa Clara County. Click here to view a copy of the opinion.
Green & Noblin, P.C. has been contacted by many consumers with similar complaints. If you have experienced this problem, a similar problem, or would like more information about the lawsuit, please contact us at (415) 477-6700 or by clicking here.
DirecTV & Best Buy
Green & Noblin, P.C. filed a class action lawsuit against DirecTV and Best Buy for failure to adequately disclose that they consider consumer "purchases" of DirecTV hardware and equipment to be "leased" and therefore owned at all times by DirecTV-eventually to be returned to DirecTV. Green & Noblin, P.C. is also investigating DirecTV's practice of charging consumers substantial "early termination fees" in connection with its "lease terms," which consumers do not see until after they have purchased and activated their DirecTV equipment. Additionally, Green & Noblin, P.C. is investigating allegations that some DirecTV subscribers have been billed a monthly service charge of $5.99 for DirecTV's "Protection Plan" despite the fact that they never signed up for this service. Green & Noblin, P.C.'s investigation of the administration of the "Protection Plan" also includes allegations that subscribers are assessed a $10 administrative fee if they cancel the Plan within the 1-year Plan term, despite never having enrolled in the Plan.
If you purchased DirecTV equipment and have had any of these experiences relating to the assessment of "early termination fees" or unauthorized charges related to the "Protection Plan," please contact us.
RCI Weeks Program
Green & Noblin, P.C., along with co-counsel, filed a class action in New Jersey in 2006 on behalf of RCI Weeks Program members. Through its Weeks Program, RCI offers its members the option of depositing their vacation week in a spacebank to exchange it for a comparable week from the spacebank. Plaintiffs allege that RCI actually rents out the most desirable and highly demanded vacation weeks from the spacebank, thus depleting the most desirable options available to Weeks Program members who seek exchanges.
If you meet the definition of a class member, your rights may be affected.
Additional information can be found at: http://www.weeksprogramsettlement.com/index.htm
Frequently asked questions:
May I still submit a claim form?
No. the Court set a deadline of November 20, 2009 for claim form submissions.
What if I requested a claim form before November 20th, but never received it?
Please write to Plaintiffs' counsel and provide information about the request that you made for the claim form. Include your name, date on which you contacted the claims administrator, and the information you provided to the claims administrator (such as your address, RCI member number, and resort ID number), and Plaintiffs' counsel will attempt to determine whether the claims administrator has record of your request. This information should be mailed to local counsel for the plaintiffs at:
David C. Berman
A Professional Corporation
P.O. Box 111
Morristown, NJ 07963-0111
A copy of your letter should be sent to RCI's Counsel at:
David S. Sager, Esq
DAY PITNEY LLP
P.O. Box 1945
Morristown, NJ 07962-1945
Because of the need to keep a precise record, requests via telephone will not be accepted. It may take up to 60 days to reply after we receive your letter.
When will I be able to use my claimed benefit?
Benefits for current members will be available within three months of the Effective Date.
Benefits for Former Members will be available within six months of the Effective Date.
The Effective Date would have been January 11, 2010, but one or more appeals of the entry of final judgment have been filed. Thus the Effective Date us unknown and will not occur until after all appeals are resolved.
By when must I use the benefit selected?
You must use your benefit within 2 years of the Effective Date.
When will RCI implement the other changes required by the settlement?
RCI must begin implementing the programmatic changes required by the settlement within six months of the Effective date. All programmatic changes must be implemented within ome year of the Effective Date.
The Effective Date would have been January 11, 2010, but one or more appeals of the entry of final judgment have been filed. Thus the Effective Date us unknown and will not occur until after all appeals are resolved.
What do I do if my claim is denied and I disagree with that decision?
Write counsel and tell them why you disagree with the decision, giving all relevant information explaining why you believe your claim was wrongfully denied. Upon receipt of your letter, Plaintiff's counsel will contact RCI on your behalf. This information should be mailed to local counsel for the plaintiffs at:
David C. Berman
A Professional Corporation
P.O. Box 111
Morristown, NJ 07963-0111
A copy of your letter should be sent to RCI's Counsel at:
David S. Sager, Esq
DAY PITNEY LLP
P.O. Box 1945
Morristown, NJ 07962-1945
Because of the need to keep a precise record, requests via telephone will not be accepted. It may take up to 60 days to reply after we receive your letter. If you need more information on how to claim your benefits, please contact us.
Firm Supports Consumer Agencies with Settlement Funds
Settlement means Millions for Consumer Advocacy
The following article is reprinted with permission from Consumer Action News (Fall 2004)
Consumer Action is one of 16 non-profit organizations around the country that is sharing $5.9 million from a class action lawsuit and will use the funds to educate and counsel low income and minority consumers about financial services.
Consumer Action received $475,000. The money comes from the settlement of a lawsuit against Providian Bancorp., a large credit card issuer that was charged with deceptives sales practices. Under the settlement, Providian paid $100 million in restitution and credits to affected customers.
When it was deemed impossible to distribute all the money to Providian customers, the court ordered a cy pres remedy, meaning it tought that the best possible use of the remaining funds was to make grants to community agencies that serve consumers through advocacy, education, counseling and other services.
CA Executive Director Ken McEldowney noted that cy pres funds are a unique and valuable way to support nonprofit educational and advocacy work. "Cy pres funding is just one of many ways in which the trial attorney community promotes consumer protection and education."
McEldowney said that Consumer Action will use its cy pres funds over the next three years to help support its consumer complaint hotline, credit card surveys and a new office in Washington D.C. staffed by Linda Sherry, the organization's editorial director.
Willard P. Ogburn is executive director of the Boston-based National Consumer Law Center, which received $700,000 from the fund. "For 35 years, the National Consumer Law Center has been protecting vulnerable consumers, often the kind of consumers Providian took advantage of," said Ogburn. "The class action against Providian brought a measure of justice for many income strapped-families and improved business practices for the future."
Ogburn noted, "Unfortunately, despite all the efforts made to find all of the harmed consumers, some money was left over. Rather than seeing ill-gotten gains returned to the wrongdoer, the next best solution is to ask highly effective organizations like Consumer Action and the National Consumer Law Center to do more to help similarly vulnerable consumers."
Another receipient organization is the Center for Responsible Lending (CRL), a unit of the Center for Community Self-Help in Durham, NC. Mark Pearce, CRL executive vice president, commented that "cy pres awards are a tremendous help for policy and research organizations such as CRL that are focused on financial practices."
Pearec said that "significant resources are required to effectively identity and tackle abusive practices in an industry as complex as financial services. Cy pres funds are flexible so we can jump on opportunities to investigate practices that cause billions of dollars of harm to borrowers."
Caryn Becker, Esq. of the San Francisco-based law firm of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, said, "Our firm is thrilled to have the opportunity to direct cy pres funds to Consumer Action and other organizations, where we know the funds will be used for groundbreaking and important work to advance the rights of consumers, consistent with the objectives of our Providian litigation. We hope this award will encourage other law firms with cy pres funds to consider Consumer Action and these other recipients in the future."
Cy pres awards generally carry few legal restrictions on their use. Unlike most charitable donations, cy pres funding often comes with no limits on lobbying, so that the money can be put to unrestricted use for advocacy and court actions.
Cy pres grantees often use the funds to monitor the marketplace for abuses that are similar in nature to those under investigation, to publicize deceptive practices and to educate consumers so they don't become victims.
In addition to Lieff Cabraser, the class was represented by Green Welling, and The Sturdevant Law Firm, both of San Francisco; Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer of New York City, and Fine, Kaplan and Black of Philadelphia.
The following organization received funds from the Providian class-action settlement cy pres fund:
Center for Responsible Lending, Durham, NC, $350,000
Community Legal Services, Philadelphia, PA, $600,000
Consumer Action, San Francisco, CA, $475,000
Consumers Union, Washington, DC, $150,000
East Bay Community Law Center, Berkeley, CA, $400,000
Equal Justice Works, Washington, DC, $250,000
The Fair Business Practices and Investor Advocacy Chair, University of California, Davis Law School, Davis, CA, $50,000
Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, $600,000
The Legal Aid Society, Employment Law Center, San Francisco, CA $400,000
Los Angeles Center for Law and Justice, Consumer Fraud Center, Los Angeles, CA $150,000
National Consumer Law Center, Boston, MA, $700,000
People's Cummunity Partnership Federal Credit Union, Oakland, CA, $100,000
Public Citizen, Washington, DC, $700,000
Santa Clara University Community Law Center, East Palo Alto, CA, $$200,000
Volunteer Legal Services Program, BASF Project, San Francisco, CA, $575,000
Women's Way, Philadelphia, PA, $100,000
CVS Caremark’s Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices
Green & Noblin, P.C. with local counsel filed a class action complaint on January 3, 2011 alleging that CVS Caremark uses patient information obtained in the process of filling or managing prescriptions for purposes beyond merely processing prescription claims. Further, CVS uses Patient information for its own financial gain by creating disincentives for patients to use a pharmacy of his or her own choice. These unfair and deceptive actions are alleged to be in violation of privacy practices and the North Carolina Pharmacy of Choice Act. One example of these violations is that the program appears to require patients to fill their prescriptions only at CVS Caremark owned pharmacies or otherwise be denied coverage. These practices appear to be carried out nationwide, so independent pharmacists in other states should contact us to determine their rights in their home state. To read a recent press release regarding this case click here. If this has happened to you, please contact us.