Apr 14, 2020 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Class Action Asserting Claims Against Bosch And VW For Selling Cars Equipped With Bosch-Made Automatic Emergency Braking Systems – Owners or Lessees Of VW and Audi Vehicles Equipped With AEB Systems Utilizing Either Bosch Mid-Range Radar Sensors Or Long-Range Radar Sensors Encouraged To Contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making consumers aware that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Audi AG, Audi Group of America, LLC (collectively, “VW”), and Robert Bosch GmbH and Robert Bosch LLC (collectively, “Bosch”) in United States District Court, Northern District of California.
This class action asserts claims against Bosch and VW who sell vehicles equipped with Bosch-made Automatic Emergency Braking Systems (“AEB Systems”). The vehicles at issue in the class action (i.e., the “Class Vehicles”) include all VW and Audi vehicles equipped with AEB Systems with either Bosch mid-range radar sensors (“MRR”) or long-range radar sensors (“LRR”).
According to the complaint:
The AEB Systems at issue here have a defect that causes them to falsely engage randomly and unexpectedly (the “AEB Defect”). The AEB Defect causes the Class Vehicles to detect non-existent obstacles, thereby automatically triggering the brakes and causing the Class Vehicles to abruptly slow down or come to a complete stop, sometimes in the middle of traffic. Simply put, as a result of the AEB Defect, the AEB Systems at issue here are a safety hazard, not a safety feature.
Many Class Vehicle owners have reported significant, unexpected slow-downs and stops due to the false engagement of the Class Vehicle’s AEB System, even though no objects were nearby. As one commentator described, ‘[w]hen the systems work, they are brilliant. When they don’t work, they are a frightening and dangerous nightmare.'[] Another aspect of the AEB Defect is that the AEB Systems frequently deactivate themselves for no good reason, rendering this safety feature effectively useless.
. . .
Defendants have known about problems with their AEB Systems for years but have been silent. Disclosing the AEB Defect would likely: (1) put Defendants at a competitive disadvantage both in safety ratings and in the race to get autonomous safety features on the market; (2) have a negative impact on their respective brands; and (3) reduce profits from sales. Instead, the VW Defendants market their vehicles as safe, despite their knowledge that the vehicles are defective and not fit for their intended purpose of providing consumers with safe and reliable transportation at the time of the sale and thereafter. They have actively concealed the true nature and extent of the AEB Defect from Plaintiffs and the other Class members and have failed to disclose it to them at the time of purchase or lease.
Had Plaintiffs and other Class members known about the AEB Defect, they would not have purchased and/or leased the Class Vehicles on the same terms or would have paid less for them. As a result of their reliance on partial representations and/or omissions by Defendants, Plaintiffs and the other Class members have suffered a loss of money and/or loss in value of their Class Vehicles. [Emphasis added.]
Purchasers or lessees of VW or Audi vehicles equipped with AEB Systems with either Bosch mid-range radar sensors (“MRR”) or long-range radar sensors (“LRR”) are encouraged to contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. to discuss potential legal claims.
Apr 14, 2020 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
FTC Issues New Round Of “Warning Letters” To Companies Making Coronavirus Claims
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making consumers aware that the FTC has issued ten new Coronavirus warning letters, which follow seven FTC-FDA letters announced on March 9, 2020 and additional joint warning letters sent since then. The FTC is advising marketers that regardless of what kind of pill, potion, device, or what-have-you your company promotes – including through social media – if you suggest or imply Coronavirus prevention or treatment claims, your practices will attract scrutiny from the FTC.
The FTC advised that the following ten companies just received letters from FTC staff:
Bioenergy Wellness Miami. The FTC says the Florida company claimed on its website that devices it sells emit sound frequencies that “target Coronavirus/SARS viral infections, and can be used either as homeoprophylaxis or at the onset of flu-like symptoms. . . .”
Face Vital LLC. According to the FTC, the Miami Beach business marketed its “Face Vital Sonic Silicone Facial Brush” as a way to “fight off Coronavirus” and suggested consumers could “RAMP UP YOUR BEAUTY AND CLEANSING REGIMEN, FIGHT OFF CORONA” by using its product.
LightAir International AB. On its website, the Swedish company claimed, “The corona virus can in various ways be air-borne . . . . IonFlow air purifiers are scientifically proven to efficiently prevent spread of air-borne viruses.”
MedQuick Labs LLC. According to statements the Arkansas company made on its Facebook page, “The CoronaVirus, as well as the flu, has everyone in a frenzy right now. One of the best things you can do is make sure your immune system is ready to fight off anything nasty. Boost your immune system with our improved Immunity Boost drip! You can wash your hands all day long but one of the best defenses against ANY illness is to boost your immune system and the best way is by putting Vitamin C and other immune building vitamins straight into your bloodstream.”
New Performance Nutrition. The warning letter to the Los Angeles business cites this statement the company had on its website: “NPN ANTI-VIRUS KIT is a bundle of immune defense supplements, hand-picked by NPN Owner/Founder Matt Mahowald, that will target and increase your immunity to help ward off the COVID-19 virus.”
ParaTHRIVE LLC. The Colorado company’s website promoted its Liposomal Vitamin C products by claiming “Experts in the field are suggesting that regular dosing of Vitamin C could help to prevent the Coronavirus . . . . ‘The coronavirus can be dramatically slowed or stopped completely with the immediate widespread use of high doses of Vitamin C. Bowel tolerance levels of C taken in divided doses throughout the day, is a clinically proven antiviral, without equal.’”
Resurgence Medical Spa, LLC. The warning letter to the Arlington, Texas business cites Facebook and Instagram posts that said, “More and more research is showing that high doses of Vitamin C could both prevent and treat Covid-19. Whether you’re experiencing symptoms or trying to keep from getting sick, call us today to schedule an appointment for a High Dose Vitamin C plus Immunity Booster IV infusion.”
Rocky Mountain IV Medics. The Colorado company advertised its IV treatments through social media and on its webpage, using claims like this: “Coronavirus Symptoms Treatment Tests are underway and IV Vitamin C treatments are starting to show promising results! If you’re looking for IV Vitamin C therapy, we have ASAP and prescheduled appointments available.” The website also linked to an article that said, “Shanghai Medical Association has released an expert consensus statement on the comprehensive treatment of COVID-19 where they endorse the use of high-dose IV vitamin c for the illness.”
Suki Distribution Pte. Ltd. The Singapore-based company’s said on its website, “As the coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic is spreading globally, our clients ask whether our products can help prevent or treat Coronavirus. The good news is that several of our products may play a role in strengthening the immune system or in fighting the Coronavirus.” The website further described a product as a “safe Japanese drug with anti-Coronavirus effects” and that a laboratory study concluded that the purported active ingredient cepharanthine “can be applied for the prevention and treatment of Human Coronavirus infection.”
Vita Activate. According to the warning letter, the Canadian company claimed on its website that its Natural Chaga Mushroom “may prevent invaders such as the corona virus. Just a few sprays a day can boost your immunity effectively . . . Very rich in source of magnesium, zinc, and selenium that have anti-corona virus properties. Get ready and be prepared to fight off bacteria and harmful airborne diseases with the powerful anti-viral, anti-bacterial Chaga Mushroom.”
The letters advise that the companies must ensure they have stopped making Coronavirus prevention, treatment, or cure claims for the cited products. The following is a sample of what the letters say:
It is unlawful under the FTC Act . . . to advertise that a product can prevent, treat, or cure human disease unless you possess competent and reliable scientific evidence, including, when appropriate, well-controlled human clinical studies, substantiating that the claims are true at the time they are made. For COVID-19, no such study is currently known to exist for the product identified above. Thus, any coronavirus-related prevention or treatment claims regarding such product is not supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence. You must immediately cease making all such claims.
Source: Federal Trade Commission – FTC.gov
Apr 14, 2020 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Class Action Lawsuit On Behalf of Individuals and Businesses Whose Personal or Private Information Was Unlawfully Collected, Disclosed And/Or Used by Zoom, Facebook And/Or LinkedIn Upon The Installation, Opening, Closing Or Use of The Zoom App
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making consumers and businesses aware that on April 13, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in United States District Court, Central District of California, against Zoom Video Communications, Inc., Facebook, and LinkedIn Corporation on behalf a nationwide Class of all persons and businesses in the United States whose personal or private information was unlawfully collected, disclosed and/or used by Zoom, Facebook and/or LinkedIn upon the installation, opening, closing or use of the Zoom App.
According to the complaint:
Zoom . . . contends that it cares for its users and seeks to deliver happiness. Not so. It recently has been revealed that: (a) Defendants Facebook and LinkedIn eavesdropped on, and otherwise read, attempted to read and learned the contents and meaning of, the communications between Zoom users’ devices and Defendant Zoom’s server; (b) Zoom and LinkedIn disclosed Zoom users’ identities to third parties even when those users actively took steps to keep their identities anonymous while using the Zoom platform; and (c) Zoom falsely represented the safeguards in place to keep users’ video communications private.
Indeed, the exploitation of Zoom users began simultaneously with the installation of Zoom’s software application (the “Zoom App”), especially if they used the iOS operating system – the system to run to Apple products. At that time, and each time thereafter that a Zoom user opened or closed the Zoom App, Defendant Facebook eavesdropped on, and otherwise read, attempted to read and learned the contents and meaning of, communications between Zoom users’ devices and Defendant Zoom’s server without the users’ knowledge or consent.
Facebook engaged in that unlawful conduct in order to gather users’ personal information and amass increasingly detailed profiles on Zoom users, which profiles Zoom and Facebook then used for their respective financial benefit.
Similarly, Defendant LinkedIn eavesdropped on, and otherwise read, attempted to read and learned the contents and meaning of[] communications between Zoom users’ devices and Defendant Zoom’s server, in order to harvest users’ personal information. Further, Zoom and LinkedIn surreptitiously provided certain Zoom users with the personal information of other users even when the victim users proactively took steps to hide their identities.
Additionally, Defendant Zoom has misrepresented the nature of the security used to protect Zoom users’ video communications. It has also concealed, suppressed and omitted from disclosure various flaws in its products until they are publicly disclosed by third parties, knowing that the disclosures could harm its business. [Emphasis added.]
The class action seeks damages and equitable relief on behalf of a nationwide Class of all persons and businesses in the United States whose personal or private information was unlawfully collected, disclosed and/or used by Zoom, Facebook and/or LinkedIn upon the installation, opening, closing or use of the Zoom App.
Apr 14, 2020 | Antitrust
Class Action Filed Against Grubhub, DoorDash, Postmates, and Uber Technologies – Companies Allegedly Use Their Meal Delivery Market Monopoly Power To Prevent Competition And Limit Consumer Choice
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making consumers aware that on April 13, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed against Grubhub, Inc., also doing business as Seamless, DoorDash Inc., Postmates Inc., and Uber Technologies, Inc., in its own right and as parent of wholly-owned subsidiary Uber Eats, in United States District Court, Southern District of New York.
According to the complaint, “Defendants’ anticompetitive conduct has enabled each Defendant to: (a) prevent and limit competition in the Meal Delivery Market; (b) prevent and limit competition in the Direct Purchase Market; [and] (c) prevent and limit competition in the Dine-In Market.” Class members, allegedly, “. . . purchased meals from restaurants that were subject to Defendants’ [No Price Competition Clause]. As a result of Defendants’ illegal conduct, these consumers were compelled to pay artificially inflated prices for their meals.” [Emphasis added.]
The complaint, among other things, alleges the following:
Unable to compete on anything that ‘meaningfully impact[s] user experience,’ each Defendant instead uses its monopoly power in the meal delivery market to prevent competition and limit consumer choice. Specifically, Defendants use their market power to impose unlawful price restraints in their merchant contracts, which have the design and effect of restricting price competition from competitors in order to maintain the Delivery Apps’ market share.
In their form contracts with restaurants, Defendants include clauses requiring uniform prices for restaurants’ menu items throughout all purchase platforms (the “No Price Competition Clause” or “NPCC”). The NPCCs prevent restaurants from charging different prices to meal delivery customers than they charge to dine-in customers for the same menu items. The purpose and effect of the No Price Competition Clause is to act as an unlawful price restraint that prevents restaurants from gaining marketshare and increased profitability per consumer by offering lower prices to consumers. The NPCCs target and harm not only restaurants, but also two distinct classes of consumers: (1) consumers who purchase directly from restaurants in the Meal Delivery Market; and (2) consumers who buy their meals in the separate and distinct restaurant Dine-In Market.[] Both restaurants and consumers would benefit absent Defendants’ unlawful restraints[.]
The rise of the four Defendants has come at great cost to American society. Defendants offer restaurants a devil’s choice: in exchange for permission to participate in Defendants’ Meal Delivery monopolies, restaurants must charge supra-competitive prices to consumers who do not buy their meals through the Delivery Apps,[] ultimately driving those consumers to Defendants’ platforms. Unable to offer consumers the increased choice of paying better prices to dine-in, restaurants have seen precious dine-in customers slip away year after year.
Defendants’ NPCCs work by forcing Direct and Dine-In consumers to shoulder Defendants’ exorbitant economic rents. While both meals sold through Defendants’ platforms and directly from the restaurant share the same costs and overhead, meals sold through the Delivery Apps are more expensive, because of Defendants’ high fees. Restaurants must calibrate their prices to the more costly meals served through the Delivery Apps in order to not lose money on those sales. Defendants’ unlawful NPCCs then force restaurants to also charge those higher prices to Dine-In and Direct Consumers, even though the cost of those consumers’ meals are lower as they do not include Defendants’ exorbitant fees.
Absent Defendants’ unlawful restraints, restaurants could offer consumers lower prices for direct sales, because direct consumers are more profitable. This is particularly true of Dine-In consumers, who purchase drinks and additional items, tip staff, and generate good will. Restaurants cannot offer Plaintiffs and the class this lower cost option, because the Delivery Apps’ No Price Competition Clauses prevent them from doing so. [Emphasis added.]
The Class is defined as all persons or entities who, since April 14, 2016, either 1) purchased meals directly from any restaurant contemporaneously contracted with the Delivery Apps or 2) all persons or entities who purchased Dine-In meals from any restaurant contracted with the Delivery Apps of Defendants Grubhub, Uber and/or Uber Eats, Postmates and/or DoorDash.
