TT Note: Gee, you think someone can now go after all the phone calls coming from some un-named credit card company offering to lower my rates? You know the calls. A computer tells you if you act now, they can help. Sorry. I'll try to get to it right after I win the lottery.
/PRNewswire/ -- Please hold for an important notice about your automobile warranty: You are at risk of getting scammed.
That's the message in a class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by Jonathan J. Sahim, individually and on behalf of other customers nationwide who have purchased so-called "extended warranty" vehicle service contracts from Dealers Warranty LLC (also known as mogi and Federal Auto Protection) and Warranty Finance LLC.
Mr. Sahim is represented in the matter by Steven L. Wittels of Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP in New York, along with the Law Offices of Mark S. Baumkel & Associates in Bingham Farms, Michigan, and Michael F. Ram of Ram & Olson, LLP in San Francisco.
The complaint details Warranty's ongoing, wrongful scheme to extract hidden interest charges and penalties from consumers who cancel their service contracts before the term of coverage expires. The complaint charges that the defendants make a practice of heavily penalizing car owners with large interest charges and marketing fees that are not spelled out in their contracts, in violation of the Federal Truth in Lending Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.
"These Warranty rip-off artists bombard millions of households with calls designed to sell them virtually useless warranty contracts," said lead counsel Steven L. Wittels. "Then, when customers try to cancel their contracts, Warranty pounces on them with exorbitant hidden interest charges, marketing fees, and cancellation penalties. The defendants have defrauded thousands of consumers across the country with these charges, and this case aims to put a stop to their unethical practices."
This is not the first time that these warranty companies have run afoul of the law. According to the complaint, the defendants recently entered a consent decree to stop violating the national "no-call" law after being sued by national phone companies for engaging in mass automated telephone blitzes. Congress also held hearings to investigate these companies' unscrupulous marketing practices.
Mr. Sahim purchased an extended warranty from Dealers Warranty in 2007, agreeing to pay a flat, monthly fee for 60 months of coverage. When he tried to cancel his policy, the companies charged Mr. Sahim hundreds of dollars in hidden fees, totaling 25% of the total value of his warranty policy.
"These charges came out of nowhere," Mr. Sahim said. "My contract said nothing about 'interest' or 'marketing fees,' so I was completely shocked when the company charged me $175 for 'interest' and a $142 'marketing fee." Mr. Sahim added that the company would not provide him with a written explanation for how they had calculated his refund. He found out about these hidden costs only after calling up the company to demand an explanation.
The case seeks class action certification and at least $50 million in relief for all the consumers nationwide who were charged these illegal fees, as well as punitive damages. "The only way consumers can ever hope to recover these deceptive fees is if this case proceeds as a class action," explained Mr. Wittels.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.artsacrossgeorgia.com
Arts Across Georgia
Showing posts with label class action. Show all posts
Showing posts with label class action. Show all posts
Monday, July 20, 2009
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Important Deadlines Near for $21 Million Class Action Settlement That Provides Consumers With Money Back for Over 200 Prescription Drugs
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Important deadlines are approaching for class members of a proposed class action settlement related to the average wholesale prices of certain prescription drugs. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted preliminary approval of the Proposed Settlement in July 2008. In the lawsuit, In re: Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation, No. 01-CV-12257-PBS, MDL No. 1456, plaintiffs claimed that drug manufacturers unlawfully inflated the published average wholesale price of certain drugs, increasing what certain consumers and others paid. The defendants deny any wrongdoing.
Consumers who paid percentage co-payments or full payments for any of the covered drugs between January 1, 1991 and March 1, 2008 are eligible for money back. (A percentage co-payment varies with the cost of the drug; refunds are not available to those who paid flat co-payments.) Requests to be excluded from the Settlement and objections to the Settlement must be postmarked by March 16, 2009. Consumer Class Members must file claims by May 1, 2009.
The Proposed Settlement includes approximately $21.8 million for payments to consumers who file valid claims. Qualifying consumers can get a minimum of $35 by certifying under oath that they paid percentage co-payments for the covered drugs. Or, with receipts or bills for percentage co-payments for the covered drugs, they can receive more money back. For some of the drugs, the payment is up to three times the amount of the co-payment.
The approximately 200 covered drugs are used for the treatment of many medical conditions and are often, but not always, injected in a doctor's office or clinic. The drugs include those for treatment of cancer, HIV, asthma, allergies, infections, inflammation, pain, gastrointestinal, lung and blood issues, and other conditions.
The Defendants, 11 drug manufacturers, deny any wrongdoing, and have stated that while they believe they have strong defenses to the claims asserted, they have entered into the Settlement as a reasonable way to resolve the litigation and avoid the further expense, burden, and inconvenience that would result if they continued to litigate.
The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on April 27, 2009 at 2:00 p.m. to consider whether the Proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and the motion for attorneys' fees and expenses. For detailed information, including a list of all the covered drugs and a claim form, call toll-free 1-877-465-8136, visit www.AWPTrack2Settlement.com, or write: AWP Track 2 Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 951, Minneapolis, MN 55440-0951.
-----
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
Consumers who paid percentage co-payments or full payments for any of the covered drugs between January 1, 1991 and March 1, 2008 are eligible for money back. (A percentage co-payment varies with the cost of the drug; refunds are not available to those who paid flat co-payments.) Requests to be excluded from the Settlement and objections to the Settlement must be postmarked by March 16, 2009. Consumer Class Members must file claims by May 1, 2009.
The Proposed Settlement includes approximately $21.8 million for payments to consumers who file valid claims. Qualifying consumers can get a minimum of $35 by certifying under oath that they paid percentage co-payments for the covered drugs. Or, with receipts or bills for percentage co-payments for the covered drugs, they can receive more money back. For some of the drugs, the payment is up to three times the amount of the co-payment.
The approximately 200 covered drugs are used for the treatment of many medical conditions and are often, but not always, injected in a doctor's office or clinic. The drugs include those for treatment of cancer, HIV, asthma, allergies, infections, inflammation, pain, gastrointestinal, lung and blood issues, and other conditions.
The Defendants, 11 drug manufacturers, deny any wrongdoing, and have stated that while they believe they have strong defenses to the claims asserted, they have entered into the Settlement as a reasonable way to resolve the litigation and avoid the further expense, burden, and inconvenience that would result if they continued to litigate.
The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on April 27, 2009 at 2:00 p.m. to consider whether the Proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and the motion for attorneys' fees and expenses. For detailed information, including a list of all the covered drugs and a claim form, call toll-free 1-877-465-8136, visit www.AWPTrack2Settlement.com, or write: AWP Track 2 Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 951, Minneapolis, MN 55440-0951.
-----
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Coca-Cola Sued Over Deceptive VitaminWater Claims
/PRNewswire/ -- A class action lawsuit was filed late yesterday in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Coca-Cola Company alleging that Coca-Cola has used deceptive advertising in marketing its VitaminWater line of beverages. The plaintiff is represented by Whatley Drake & Kallas, LLC ("WDK"), Reese Richman LLP, and the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI).
The complaint alleges that Coca-Cola deceived consumers by marketing VitaminWater as a healthy alternative to soft drinks formulated to provide a host of health benefits including reducing the risk of certain diseases, promoting healthy joints, and supporting optimal immune function. Contrary to Coca-Cola's claims of health benefits, the complaint alleges that the 33 grams of sugar in each bottle of VitaminWater may contribute to serious health problems, such as obesity and diabetes.
"Consumers are increasingly health-conscious, with more and more people avoiding soft drinks in favor of healthier alternatives," said WDK attorney Patrick Sheehan. "Coca-Cola has taken advantage of that trend -- and of consumers -- by purposefully misrepresenting their product as 'healthy' when in fact it is essentially sugar water with a few added vitamins. Consumers should not have to look beyond the misleading claims on VitaminWater labels in order to discover the truth on an ingredients list."
VitaminWater does not name Coca-Cola anywhere on its packaging or labeling, instead marketing these purportedly healthy drinks without any reference to the soft drink manufacturer that produces them.
"It's clear that Coca-Cola has attempted to market an alternative to its soda products in a way that deliberately deceives consumers," continued Sheehan. "Whatley Drake & Kallas is proud to be playing a role in protecting those consumers through this class action suit filed on their behalf."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
The complaint alleges that Coca-Cola deceived consumers by marketing VitaminWater as a healthy alternative to soft drinks formulated to provide a host of health benefits including reducing the risk of certain diseases, promoting healthy joints, and supporting optimal immune function. Contrary to Coca-Cola's claims of health benefits, the complaint alleges that the 33 grams of sugar in each bottle of VitaminWater may contribute to serious health problems, such as obesity and diabetes.
"Consumers are increasingly health-conscious, with more and more people avoiding soft drinks in favor of healthier alternatives," said WDK attorney Patrick Sheehan. "Coca-Cola has taken advantage of that trend -- and of consumers -- by purposefully misrepresenting their product as 'healthy' when in fact it is essentially sugar water with a few added vitamins. Consumers should not have to look beyond the misleading claims on VitaminWater labels in order to discover the truth on an ingredients list."
VitaminWater does not name Coca-Cola anywhere on its packaging or labeling, instead marketing these purportedly healthy drinks without any reference to the soft drink manufacturer that produces them.
"It's clear that Coca-Cola has attempted to market an alternative to its soda products in a way that deliberately deceives consumers," continued Sheehan. "Whatley Drake & Kallas is proud to be playing a role in protecting those consumers through this class action suit filed on their behalf."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
