Feb 23, 2017 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
A class-action complaint was recently filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Logitech, Inc. (“Logitech”). The complaint alleges that Logitech violated certain consumer protection and warranty laws through the sale of defective, unreliable home security systems.
Logitech’s Alleged Defective Home Security Systems
These security systems are sold under the “Alert” brand (the “Alert Systems”) as high-definition digital complete home video security systems and were marketed as an “easy, comprehensive solution to home security.” Logitech also promised “. . . subscribers access to Logitech’s ‘secure, data center-housed servers’ that would be: Always On. Always Working,” along with an “. . . express one-year warranty in writing that promised customers that their ‘Logitech hardware product shall be free from defects in material and workmanship’.”
Logitech’s Alleged Violations of Consumer Protection and Warranty Laws
According to the complaint, Logitech’s online customer forum was inundated “. . . with complaints about the functionality and efficacy of the Alert Systems that rendered the Alert Systems inoperable and unable to provide reliable security services.” Customers reported a variety of problems including difficulty with installation and setup of the Alert Systems; systems not turning on and staying powered; systems not recording or downloading video properly; and problems with connectivity, overheating, and delayed/failed alerts.
Further, the complaint alleges that rather than repair or refund the defective systems:
Logitech responded by designing and implementing a strategy to avoid its express warranty obligations by, among other things: (1) requiring customers to go through repetitive, time-consuming, cumbersome, and unsuccessful troubleshooting processes; (2) failing to replace customers’ defective systems with non-defective parts, software, or systems in a timely manner while warranty periods lapsed; (3) repeatedly telling customers Alert Systems were on back-order so that they could not be replaced during the warranty period; (4) creating administrative hassles for customers to prove purchases and submit exchange Alert Systems for repair and/or replacement; (5) replacing defective Alert Systems with defective Alert Systems; (6) misleading customers that its Alert Systems’ problems would be fixed with upcoming hardware and software fixes that never materialized or did not actually work; (7) failing to implement successful software upgrades that would resolve or improve the user experience and make the Alert Systems functional for their intended purposes; and (8) failing to provide refunds. As a result, Logitech strategically left customers without operable security systems during the warranty period while it ran out the clock.
Do Logitech’s Alleged Violations Matter?
According to the complaint, “Logitech’s Alert Systems actually placed consumers at an increased safety risk because the Alert Systems were faulty, defective, and could not protect buyers from the home security risks the products were intended to alert buyers of and prevent, such as break-ins and robberies.”
Further, the complaint alleges that Logitech breached “. . . its implied warranties with consumers by deceptively marketing and selling Alert Systems that were never merchantable for providing reliable, continuous digital home security” and “as a result of Logitech’s unlawful business practices, consumers unknowningly invested hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars in Alert Systems that are now obsolete and that have already or will inevitably fail.”
Who May Have Been Affected?
According to the complaint, Logitech began sale and distribution of the high-definition digital complete home video security systems in 2010. Logitech’s Alert Systems were sold under the “Alert” brand name and were packaged “. . . as a complete home video security system that would allow customers to ‘Be There When You’re Not.'”
What Can Those Who May Have Been Affected Do?
The Kehoe Law Firm is ready to help. If you have concerns about your purchase of a Logitech home security Alert System, you can speak to an attorney for a free, no-obligation consultation by calling Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected] or John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected].
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to protecting investors and consumers from corporate fraud, negligence, and other wrongdoing. Driven by a strong and principled sense of social responsibility and obtaining justice for the aggrieved, Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. represents plaintiffs seeking to recover investment losses resulting from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, corporate wrongdoing or malfeasance, those harmed by anticompetitive practices, and consumers victimized by fraud, false claims, deception or data breaches. Together, the partners of the Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. have spent more than 30 years prosecuting precedent-setting securities and financial fraud cases in federal and state courts on behalf of institutional and individual clients.
Feb 17, 2017 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
A class action complaint was filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco against Oracle America, Inc. (“Oracle”) by a former Oracle sales representative, alleging that Oracle retroactively changed its commission contacts in order to avoid paying its sales employees millions in earned commissions.
Oracle’s Retroactive Compensation Plans
The class action complaint alleges that Oracle would alter its sales employees’ existing compensation plans with revised plans known as “re-plans.” Re-plans are retroactive and apply to sales transactions that have already been completed by sales employees. According to the complaint, “Re-plans affect past sales going back to a date of Oracle’s choosing, sometimes to the beginning of the same fiscal year and sometimes to a date in a previous fiscal year.”
The complaint further alleges:
. . . Oracle has . . . systematically stiffed its salesforce of earned commission wages for many years, by scrapping contractual compensation plans when they yield commission earnings that are higher than Oracle would prefer to pay and retroactively imposing inferior- i.e.[,] less remunerative – numeric terms. Simply put, Oracle routinely decides to change commission formulas so as to reduce commission payments on past sales, well after the commissions have been earned and even sometimes after they have been paid.
. . .Oracle coerces employees into accepting re-plans by threatening that if they fail to accept the new commission plans within 24 hours, they will not be paid pending commissions at all. Even if a a bold employee refuses to agree to an inferior replan, Oracle barrels ahead anyway, applying the re-plan terms to both past and future sales.
Why Do Oracle’s Retroactive Changes Matter?
According to the complaint:
Oracle’s commission policies and practices violate the contractual compensation plans accepted by sales employees. They violate the California Labor Code’s prohibitions on deducting wages to defray ordinary business costs and secretly paying a lower wage while purporting to pay the wage designated by contract. They contradict the Labor Code requirement that commission contracts be transparent about the methods for computing and paying commissions. They are fundamentally unfair business practices.
Further, the lawsuit alleges that Oracle’s “re-plans” allow Oracle to “claw back” previously paid commissions, in addition to forcing employees who cannot afford to “fork over substantial sums,” to either “. . . pay off the supposed debt by continuing to work for Oracle without being paid commission or be threatened with a collections lawsuit if they leave before completely paying off their negative commission balance.”
Moreover, the lawsuit contends that “. . . Oracle reduces commissions through systematic processes designed to align commissions with financial forecasts and bottom line goals. Over the years, Oracle has taken millions of dollars from commission wages to add to its bottom line.”
Who May Have Been Affected?
The complaint filed in California applies to commissioned sales employees employed by Oracle in California for the last four years who received “. . . revised commission agreements which retroactively applied inferior – i.e. less remunerative – numeric terms (including but not limited to higher quotas and lower commission rates) to completed sales.”
What Can Those Who May Have Been Affected Do?
The Kehoe Law Firm P.C. is ready to help. If you served as an Oracle commissioned sales employee to whom Oracle issued revised commission agreements which retroactively applied less lucrative terms, you can speak to an attorney for a free, no-obligation consultation by calling Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected] or John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected].
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to protecting investors and consumers from corporate fraud, negligence, and other wrongdoing. Driven by a strong and principled sense of social responsibility and obtaining justice for the aggrieved, Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. represents plaintiffs seeking to recover investment losses resulting from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, corporate wrongdoing or malfeasance, those harmed by anticompetitive practices, and consumers victimized by fraud, false claims, deception or data breaches. Together, the partners of the Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. have spent more than 30 years prosecuting precedent-setting securities and financial fraud cases in federal and state courts on behalf of institutional and individual clients.
Jan 31, 2017 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
A class action complaint has been filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of California against Ford Motor Company (“Ford”). The lawsuit alleges that certain models of Ford, Lincoln, and Mercury vehicles contain defective electronic throttle body control systems (“ETB”). According to the complaint, the defect in the ETB causes “rapid unintended deceleration” which poses a safety risk to drivers, passengers, and other vehicles. The complaint also alleges that Ford has known of the defect, but rather than adequately addressing the problem and warning consumers, Ford has downplayed and covered up the problem with the ETBs. According to the complaint, Ford engaged in a secret recall which it called a “customer satisfaction program” that only covered some of the affected vehicles leaving many unsafe vehicles on the road and many owners unaware of the potential hazard. Further, the complaint alleges that rather than admitting its vehicles are dangerous and defective, Ford described the problem as “electrical contamination” and said it was not an “unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety.”
Why Does Ford’s Defect Matter?
Along with the risk to drivers, passengers, and other vehicles, the complaint states:
“Ford’s conduct has had the effect of denying those who own or lease Ford and Lincoln vehicles their full rights under the law. These rights include consumers’ pre-purchase or lease rights to fair and reasonable information as well as post-purchase or lease rights, including rights under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, commonly known as California’s lemon law. Ford also has failed to fully, adequately, and effectively tell consumers what they must do if the vehicles they are driving unintentionally and suddenly decelerate. To do so, and to do so effectively, would protect lives, but would also constitute an admission of a problem, so Ford refuses to act responsibly and morally, choosing profit instead. Ford has chosen to deceive its customers rather than educate them with life-saving information about its vehicles.”
Who May Have Been Affected?
According to the complaint, the following vehicles contain the defective ETBs:
- 2011-2014 Lincoln Mark LT (3.5L and 3.7L engine)
- 2011-2016 Lincoln MKX (3.7L engine)
- 2013-2016 Lincoln MKZ (3.7L engine; base and Black Label models)
- 2013-2016 Lincoln MKT (3.7L engine; base model)
- 2013-2015 Lincoln MKS (3.7L engine; base model)
- 2011-2016 Ford Edge (3.5L engine)
- 2011-2014 Ford Edge (3.7L engine)
- 2015-2016 Ford Mustang (3.7L engine)
- 2011-2014 Ford Mustang (base, GT, and Shelby models)
- 2013-2015 Ford Taurus (3.5L engine)
- 2011-2014 Ford F-150 (3.7L engine)
- 2015-2016 Ford F-150 (3.5L Duratec V6 engine)
- 2011-2016 Ford Explorer (3.5L Duratec V6 engine)
What Can Those Who May Have Been Affected Do?
The Kehoe Law Firm P.C. is ready to help. Anyone who purchased one of the affected vehicles can speak to an attorney for a free, no-obligation consultation by calling Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, or sending an e-mail to [email protected].
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to protecting investors and consumers from corporate fraud, negligence, and other wrongdoing. Driven by a strong and principled sense of social responsibility and obtaining justice for the aggrieved, Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. represents plaintiffs seeking to recover investment losses resulting from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, corporate wrongdoing or malfeasance, those harmed by anticompetitive practices, and consumers victimized by fraud, false claims, deception or data breaches. Together, the partners of the Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. have spent more than 30 years prosecuting precedent-setting securities and financial fraud cases in federal and state courts on behalf of institutional and individual clients.
Jan 26, 2017 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) has filed a complaint against Navient Corporation (“Navient”) for violating federal regulations related to the servicing and collection of student loans. Among other things, the complaint alleges that Navient violated Federal consumer financial laws through its practices of systematically deterring numerous borrowers from obtaining access to some or all of the benefits and protections associated with long-term payment plans.
The CPFB’s Allegations Against Navient
According to the complaint, “[d]espite assuring borrowers that it would help them find the right repayment option for their circumstances, Navient steered these borrowers experiencing financial hardship that was not short-term or temporary into costly payment relief designed for borrowers experiencing short-term financial problems, before or instead of affordable long-term repayment options that were more beneficial to them in light of their financial situation.”
Further, “[f]or borrowers who did enroll in long-term repayment plans, Navient failed to disclose the annual deadline to renew those plans, misrepresented the consequences of non-renewal, and obscured its renewal notice to borrowers who were due for renewal. As a result, the affordable payment amount expired for hundreds of thousands of borrowers, resulting in an immediate increase in their monthly payment and other financial harm.”
Why Do Navient’s Violations Matter?
According to the CFPB’s complaint, “[m]ost federal student borrowers have a right under federal law to set their monthly student loan payment as a share of their income, an arrangement that can offer borrowers extended payment relief and other significant benefits.” Navient’s “. . . practices prevented some of the most financially vulnerable borrowers from securing some or all of the benefits of plans that were intended to ease the burden of unaffordable student debt.”
Who May Have Been Affected?
Navient was formerly part of Sallie Mae, Inc. and is the largest student loan servicer in the United States. According to the complaint, “Navient services the loans of more than 12 million borrowers, including over 6 million customer accounts under a contract with the U.S. Department of Education, and more than $300 billion in federal and private student loans.”
What Can Those Who May Have Been Affected Do?
The Kehoe Law Firm is ready to help. Anyone with a student loan serviced by Navient can speak to an attorney for a free, no-obligation consultation by calling Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, or sending an e-mail to [email protected].
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to protecting investors and consumers from corporate fraud, negligence, and other wrongdoing. Driven by a strong and principled sense of social responsibility and obtaining justice for the aggrieved, Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. represents plaintiffs seeking to recover investment losses resulting from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, corporate wrongdoing or malfeasance, those harmed by anticompetitive practices, and consumers victimized by fraud, false claims, deception or data breaches. Together, the partners of the Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. have spent more than 30 years prosecuting precedent-setting securities and financial fraud cases in federal and state courts on behalf of institutional and individual clients.
Jan 17, 2017 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board recently issued notices of violation to Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. and its subsidiary, FCA US LLC (collectively “Chrysler”), for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act. According to the notices, Chrysler failed to disclose that it installed engine management software in several models of Dodge Ram trucks and Jeep Grand Cherokees. Both agencies have initiated investigations into Chrysler based on these allegations.
Chrysler’s Alleged Violations
The Clean Air Act requires automakers to disclose and explain any software, known as auxiliary emission control devices (“AECD”), that can alter how a vehicle emits air pollution. EPA testing on the Dodge Ram trucks and Jeep Grand Cherokees found at least eight AECDs that Chrysler, allegedly, had failed to disclose. The EPA testing also revealed that the vehicles produce increased NOx emissions “under conditions that would be encountered in normal operation and use.” Further, the EPA is investigating whether the AECDs can be considered illegal “defeat devices.”
Why do the alleged violations matter?
Consumers may have been provided with inaccurate emissions information which may have affected their decisions to purchase the vehicles or the price they were willing to pay. Further, vehicles with increased emissions, particularly if “defeat devices” are involved, may have lower resale value than other vehicles.
Who may have been affected?
The EPA’s allegations concern model year 2014, 2015 and 2016 light-duty Jeep Grand Cherokees and Dodge Ram 1500 trucks with 3.0 liter diesel engines. The allegations cover roughly 104,000 vehicles, all of which were sold in the United States.
What can those who may have been affected do?
The Kehoe Law Firm is ready to help. Anyone who purchased one of the affected vehicles can speak to an attorney for a free, no-obligation consultation by calling Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, or sending an e-mail to [email protected].
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to protecting investors and consumers from corporate fraud, negligence, and other wrongdoing. Driven by a strong and principled sense of social responsibility and obtaining justice for the aggrieved, Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. represents plaintiffs seeking to recover investment losses resulting from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, corporate wrongdoing or malfeasance, those harmed by anticompetitive practices, and consumers victimized by fraud, false claims, deception or data breaches. Together, the partners of the Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. have spent more than 30 years prosecuting precedent-setting securities and financial fraud cases in federal and state courts on behalf of institutional and individual clients.
