Apr 6, 2020 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Class Action Filed On Behalf of Owners of 2010-2015 Prius or Prius PHV, 2012-2015 Prius V, 2012-2014 Camry Hybrid, And 2013-2015 Avalon Hybrid Vehicles
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making consumers aware that on April 3, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed against Toyota Motor Corporation and Toyota Motor North America, Inc. (collectively, “Toyota”) in United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, on behalf of owners and/or lessees of 2010–2015 Prius and Prius PHV, the 2012–2015 Prius V, the 2012–2014 Camry Hybrid, and the 2013–2015 Avalon Hybrid.
According to the class action complaint, the “lawsuit arises because Toyota Motor Corporation and its U.S. distributor, Toyota Motor North America, Inc. . . . know that the braking systems in the [aforementioned] vehicles . . . contain a defect that causes systemic braking system failures. Yet Toyota refuses to repair or replace such defective systems until and unless unsuspecting drivers of [the subject vehicles] actually experience a brake failure—which could obviously result in injuries or even deaths that could otherwise be avoided.”
The complaint alleges that
[t]he brake systems in the [2010–2015 Prius and Prius PHV, 2012–2015 Prius V, 2012–2014 Camry Hybrid, and 2013–2015 Avalon Hybrid] are defective because the brake booster pump assembly can—and with unreasonably frequency does—fail to operate as necessary to ensure the brakes engage when the brake pedal is depressed. The defect endangers drivers, passengers, and other persons and property in the vicinity of an Affected Vehicle at any time that it is in motion. The defect thus renders the Affected Vehicles less safe and less valuable than consumers would reasonably expect and it makes them less safe and less valuable than the Affected Vehicles would be if Toyota did not design and sell the [subject vehicles] with the defect. [Emphasis added.]
Apr 6, 2020 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Class Action Filed Against Marriott International, Inc. and NFNY Hotel Management LLC On Behalf of Individuals Who Have Worked for Defendants as Servers, Waiters, Bartenders, Room Service Attendants, And Other Non-Managerial Service Workers Paid On An Hourly Basis
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making employees aware that on April 3, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed against Marriott International, Inc. and NFNY Hotel Management LLC in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, “on behalf of individuals who have worked for Defendants as servers, waiters, bartenders, room service attendants, and other non-managerial service workers paid on an hourly basis, and are subject to Defendants’ service fee policies and practices.”
The complaint defines the Class as “[a]ll current and former hourly, non-exempt employees, including but not limited to servers, food servers, beverage servers, in-room dining servers, banquet servers, or other employees with similar job duties employed by [Marriott International and NFNY Hotel Management] Defendants, individually and/or jointly, in New York any time starting six years prior to the filing of the Complaint until resolution of this action.” [Emphasis in original.]
According to the complaint:
This case implicates the [Marriott International and NFNY Hotel Management ] Defendants’ longstanding policies and practices, which fail to properly compensate all non-exempt service workers for service charge payments remitted to them as wages. As a result, throughout the relevant time period, Plaintiff and similarly situated workers are denied payment for all service fees charges to customers that are reasonably perceived to be meant as gratuity payments. [Emphasis added.]
Defendants impose mandatory ‘service charge’ and/or ‘delivery fee’ surcharges . . . on the sale of food and beverages to their customers, but fail to distribute the total proceeds of those service fee surcharges to non-managerial service employees as required by New York law.
The class action “seeks to remedy the sweeping practices Defendants integrated into their gratuity systems and payroll policies that have deprived Plaintiff and Class members of their lawfully earned wages.”
Do You Believe Your Wage and Hour or Overtime Pay Rights Have Been Violated?
If you believe your wage and hour or overtime pay rights have been violated please either contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. Partner Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], complete the form on the right or send an e-mail to [email protected] for a free, no-obligation case evaluation of your facts to determine whether your wage and hour or overtime rights have been violated and whether there is a basis for a class action lawsuit.
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. prosecutes wage and hour class actions on a contingent-fee basis; thus, plaintiffs and the class members do not pay out-of-pocket attorney’s fees or litigation costs. Subject to court approval, attorney’s fees and litigation costs are derived from the recovery obtained for the class.
Apr 6, 2020 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against General Electric Company and Canon Business Process Services For Alleged Failure to Secure and Safeguard Personal Identifying Information of Hundreds of Thousands of Current and Former GE Employees and Employee Beneficiaries
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making consumers aware that on April 2, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed against the General Electric Company (“GE”) and Canon Business Process Services, Inc. (“Canon”) in United States District Court, Eastern District of California, for the Defendants’ alleged “failure to secure and safeguard her personal identifying information . . . and the [p]ersonal [i]nformation of hundreds of thousands of other current and former GE employees, as well as the GE employees’ beneficiaries.”
According to the class action complaint:
Unfortunately for current and former GE employees entitled to benefits, between approximately February 3, 2020 and February 14, 2020, Canon experienced a data breach in which hackers accessed the [p]ersonal [i]nformation of numerous current and former GE employees entitled to benefits, including their beneficiaries . . ..[]
According to GE, hackers gained access to, at minimum, the below categories of information:[]
direct deposit forms, driver’s licenses, passports, birth certificates, marriage certificates, death certificates, medical child support orders, tax withholding forms, beneficiary designation forms and applications for benefits such as retirement, severance and death benefits with related forms and documents, may have included names, addresses, Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers, bank account numbers, passport numbers, dates of birth, and other information contained in the relevant forms. [Emphasis added.]
The complaint alleges that “the Data Breach was the inevitable result of Defendants’ inadequate approach to data security and their failure to protect Class Members’ [p]ersonal [i]nformation that they collected, maintained, and disseminated during the course of their business.”
GE’s “Notice of Data Breach” Submitted to California Attorney General
On March 20, 2020, GE submitted a “Notice of Data Breach” to the California Attorney General which, among other things, stated the following:
What Happened?
[GE was] notified on February 28, 2020 that Canon had determined that, between approximately February 3 – 14, 2020, an unauthorized party gained access to an email account that contained documents of certain GE employees, former employees and beneficiaries entitled to benefits that were maintained on Canon’s systems.
What Information Was Involved?
Canon has indicated that the affected documents, which contained certain personal information, were uploaded by or for GE employees, former employees and beneficiaries entitled to benefits in connection with Canon’s workflow routing service. The relevant personal information, which was contained in documents such as direct deposit forms, driver’s licenses, passports, birth certificates, marriage certificates, death certificates, medical child support orders, tax withholding forms, beneficiary designation forms and applications for benefits such as retirement, severance and death benefits with related forms and documents, may have included names, addresses, Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers, bank account numbers, passport numbers, dates of birth, and other information contained in the relevant forms.
Have You Been Impacted by A Data Breach?
If so, please either contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], complete the form on the right or e-mail [email protected] for a free, no-obligation case evaluation of your facts to determine whether your privacy rights have been violated and whether there is a basis for a data privacy class action.
Examples of the type of relief sought by data privacy class actions, include, but are not limited to, reimbursement of identity theft losses and of out-of-pocket costs paid by data breach victims for protective measures such as credit monitoring services, credit reports, and credit freezes; compensation for time spent responding to the breach; imposition of credit monitoring services and identity theft insurance, paid for by the defendant company; and improvements to the defendant company’s data security systems.
Data privacy class actions are brought on a contingent-fee basis; thus, plaintiffs and the class members do not pay out-of-pocket attorney’s fees or litigation costs. Subject to court approval, attorney’s fees and litigation costs are derived from the recovery obtained for the class.
Apr 6, 2020 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
FTC “Warning Letters” Sent to VoIP Service Providers Reminding VoIP Providers Not To Assist or Facilitate Illegal Robocalling
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making consumers aware that the FTC staff sent warning letters to nine companies reminding them of the potential ramifications of behind-the-scenes involvement in illegal COVID-19 promotions. The companies that received the letters are VoIPMax, SIPJoin Holding, IFly Communications, Third Rock Telecom, Bluetone Communications, VoIP Terminator a/k/a BLMarketing, J2 Web Services, VoxBone US, and Comet Media.
The recipients of the warning letters, according to the FTC, are providers of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services and companies that license telephone number who have customers that may be involved in the recent onslaught of robocalls used to further Coronavirus scams. The letters remind the VoIP providers that under the FTC Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule, “assisting and facilitating” others involved in illegal robocalling is illegal, too. (And, for commercial calls, “initiating or causing the initiation of calls that deliver prerecorded messages” is illegal unless the person has given their express written permission to receive robocalls from the person or company making the calls.)
In addition, under the Telemarketing Sales Rule, it’s unlawful “to provide substantial assistance or support to a seller or telemarketer” when you know or consciously avoid knowing that the seller or telemarketer is violating certain provisions of the Rule – for example, if they:
- Make false or misleading statements to get a person to buy a product;
- Make false or misleading statements to get charitable contributions;
- Misrepresent a seller or telemarketer’s affiliation with a government agency;
- Transmit false or deceptive caller ID information; or
- Initiate or cause the initiation of telemarketing calls to numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry.
According to the FTC, the warning letters are focused on these examples, because Coronavirus-related robocalls consumers are receiving often involve violations of those provisions.
Source: Federal Trade Commission – FTC.gov
Apr 6, 2020 | Antitrust
Class Action Alleges Fair Isaac Corporation’s Anticompetitive Conduct Discouraged Adoption of Credit Score Alternative for Business Purchasers of FICO Credit Scores
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making business owners aware that on April 2, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, against Fair Isaac Corporation on behalf of “B2B Purchasers” of a FICO B2B Credit Score from Fair Isaac and/or a Credit Bureau.
The lawsuit “concerns the B2B Credit Score Market, over which Defendant Fair Isaac has unlawfully maintained a 90% monopoly for many years.” According to the complaint, “Fair Isaac has abused its monopoly power by engaging in anticompetitive and exclusionary conduct and agreements. Fair Isaac has suppressed competition, stymied innovation, and limited access to credit for millions of Americans – all in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§1 & 2, as well as numerous state antitrust and unfair trade practices laws.” [Emphasis added.]
Alleged Pattern of Anticompetitive Conduct To Discourage Adoption of VantageScore Credit Score Alternative
The antitrust class action complaint alleges that
[r]ather than compete on the merits with VantageScore, Fair Isaac has engaged in a pattern of anticompetitive conduct over the course of more than a decade to discourage the adoption of VantageScore and preserve its own monopoly, with the Credit Bureaus’ [i.e., TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax] assistance. Fair Isaac has abused its monopoly power to prevent the Credit Bureaus from successfully marketing and selling a competitive alternative to FICO Scores and has waged a disparaging public relations and advertising campaign to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt about VantageScore’s viability and reliability with lenders and consumers.
Through its exclusionary conduct, Fair Isaac has succeeded in preventing the substantial sales growth that VantageScore or a competing credit scoring system would have achieved though competition on the merits. Having suppressed competition, Fair Isaac has been able to significantly increase prices, including most recently in September 2019, for its FICO Scores. But for Fair Isaac’s suppression of competition and the resulting contractual agreements not to compete, VantageScore or another competitive credit scoring system would have thrived and won substantial market share through its innovative product and would have reduced the prices paid for B2B Credit Scores by Plaintiff and members of the Class.
Fair Isaac’s anticompetitive and exclusionary conduct has harmed businesses that have been deprived of competitive pricing for instruments to allow them to gauge credit risk and have had their freedom of choice restricted. Opening the market to competition is essential to competitive pricing and product innovation, including scoring the tens of millions of creditworthy Americans who have been denied access to credit. [Emphasis added]
If you are a lender, financial institution or other business (i.e., a “B2B Purchaser,”) that purchased a FICO B2B Credit Score from Fair Isaac or a Credit Bureau, you are encouraged to contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. to discuss potential legal claims.
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.
