Dec 18, 2021 | Blog, Data Breach
Online Retailers Tackle Warehouse LLC, Running Warehouse LLC, Skate Warehouse LLC & Tennis Warehouse LLC Hacked – Customer Personal And Financial Data Information Stolen
The Office Of The Maine Attorney General’s online data breach notification portal reflects that 1,813,224 individuals, including Maine residents, were affected by an external system hacking data breach of four online sports equipment retail websites, which resulted in the acquisition of customer names or other personal identifiers in combination with financial account numbers, credit/debit card numbers (in combination with security code, access code, password or account PIN).
The data breach occurred on October 1, 2021, and was discovered on November 29, 2021.
Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Wilderness Sports Warehouse, LLC, d/b/a Tackle Warehouse; Running Warehouse, LLC; Sports Warehouse, Inc., d/b/a Tennis Warehouse; & Skate Warehouse, LLC
On January 11, 2022, a class action lawsuit was filed in United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia against the aforementioned online retailers for their alleged failure to properly secure and safeguard highly-valuable, protected Personally Identifiable Information (“PII”), including, without limitation, names, addresses, credit card and debit card numbers, expiration dates, and CV codes; alleged failure to comply with industry standards to protect information systems that contain PII; and alleged failure to provide adequate and prompt notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their PII had been accessed and compromised.
The complaint alleges that the named Defendants knew, or should have known, the importance of safeguarding the PII entrusted to Defendants and of the foreseeable consequences if its data security systems were breached. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed, however, to take adequate cyber security measures to prevent the data breach from occurring.
Have You Been Harmed By A Data Breach?
If so, please complete the form on the right or contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., [email protected], for a free, no-obligation evaluation of potential legal claims.
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.
Dec 18, 2021 | Blog, Product Liability
P&G Aerosol Dry Conditioner Spray Products and Aerosol Dry Shampoo Spray Products Recalled Due To The Presence of Benzene Detected In Some Products
A December 17, 2021 FDA recall alert stated that Procter & Gamble (“P&G”) is recalling aerosol dry conditioner spray products and aerosol dry shampoo spray products from Pantene, Aussie, Herbal Essences, and Waterless in addition to previously discontinued aerosol dry shampoo products from Old Spice and Hair Food, due to the presence of benzene detected in some products.
Risk Statement & Recommendations
Benzene is classified as a human carcinogen. Exposure to benzene can occur by inhalation, orally, and through the skin and it can result in cancers including leukemia and blood cancer of the bone marrow and blood disorders which can be life-threatening. Based on exposure modeling and the cancer risk assessments published by the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) (IRIS database), daily exposure to benzene in the recalled products at the levels detected in our testing would not be expected to cause adverse health consequences.
To date, Procter & Gamble has not received any reports of adverse events related to this recall and is conducting this recall out of an abundance of caution.
The FDA MedWatch alert recommends that consumers should stop using and appropriately discard the affected aerosol dry conditioner spray products and aerosol dry shampoo spray products.
To read P&G’s recall announcement, please click P&G Issues Voluntary Recall of Aerosol Dry Conditioner Spray Products and Aerosol Dry Shampoo Spray Products.
Source: FDA.gov; FDA Recalls, Market Withdrawals & Safety Alerts
Dec 17, 2021 | Blog, Car Problems Car Complaints
Owners And Lessees Of 2019-2022 Mercedes E-Class, Mercedes CLS-Class, Mercedes GLE 450 & GLS 450 Vehicles Encouraged To Contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating potential consumer class action claims on behalf of owners and lessees of 2019-2022 Mercedes-Benz E-Class, Mercedes-Benz CLS-Class, Mercedes-Benz GLE 450, and Mercedes-Benz GLS 450 vehicles.
The investigation concerns battery failure of the 48-Volt battery in certain Mercedes vehicles, which can cause a vehicle not to start, thereby requiring towing and/or battery replacement.
Owners And Lessees Of Mercedes-Benz Vehicles Who Have Experienced Battery Failure Are Encouraged To Contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., John Kehoe, Esq., [email protected], [email protected], To Learn More About The Battery Defect Investigation Or Potential Legal Claims.
Dec 17, 2021 | Blog, Consumer Protection
The CFPB is concerned about accumulating debt, regulatory arbitrage, and data harvesting in a consumer credit market already quickly changing with technology.
Buy now, pay later credit is a type of deferred payment option that generally allows the consumer to split a purchase into smaller installments, typically four or less, often with a down payment of 25 percent due at checkout. The application process is quick, involving relatively little information from the consumer, and the product often comes with no interest. Lenders have touted BNPL as a safer alternative to credit card debt, along with its ability to serve consumers with scant or subprime credit histories.
According to the CFPB, merchants are adopting BNPL programs and are willing to typically pay 3 percent to 6 percent of the purchase price to the companies, similar to credit card interchange fees, because consumers often buy more and spend more with BNPL. Indeed, BNPL’s use has spiked during the COVID-19 pandemic and throughout the holiday shopping season. More and more Americans are using it, and the most recent Black Friday and Cyber Monday shopping weekend saw massive growth in BNPL. This explosive growth has caught the eye of many investors, including significant venture capital money. Big tech companies are also entering the arena.
The law requires that the CFPB monitor consumer financial markets and enables the agency to require market players to submit information to inform this monitoring. The CFPB expects to publish aggregated findings on insights learned from this inquiry. The CFPB Bureau is concerned about the following:
Accumulating Debt
Whereas the old-style layaway installment loans were typically used for the occasional big purchase, people can quickly become regular users of BNPL for everyday discretionary buying, especially if they download the easy-to-use apps or install the web browser plugins. If a consumer has multiple purchases on multiple schedules with multiple companies, it may be hard to keep track of when payments are scheduled. And when there is not enough money in a consumer’s bank account, this can potentially result in charges by both the consumer’s bank and the BNPL provider. Because of the ease of getting these loans, consumers can end up spending more than anticipated.
Regulatory Arbitrage
Some BNPL companies may not be adequately evaluating what consumer protection laws apply to their products. For example, some BNPL products do not provide certain disclosures, which could be required by some laws. And while the BNPL application may look similar to a standard checkout with a credit card, protections that apply to credit cards may not apply to BNPL products. Many BNPL companies do not provide dispute resolution protections available to users of other forms of credit, like credit cards. And finally, depending on what rules the lender is following, different late fees and policies apply.
Data Harvesting
BNPL lenders have access to the valuable payment histories of their customers. Some have used this collected data to create closed loop shopping apps with partner merchants, pushing specific brands and products, often geared toward younger audiences. As competitive forces pressure the merchant discount, lenders will need to find other sources of revenue to maintain growth and profitability. The Bureau would like to better understand practices around data collection, behavioral targeting, data monetization and the risks they may create for consumers.
For more information about BNPL, please click: Know Before You Buy.
Source: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Dec 17, 2021 | Antitrust, Blog
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. Is Investigating Whether Engineers Or Other Skilled Employees Of Various Aerospace Companies Were Harmed By Anticompetitive Hiring Practices, Including Aerospace Engineering Companies Pratt & Whitney; QuEST Global Services-NA, Inc.; Belcan Engineering Group, LLC; Belcan Engineering Group Limited Partnership; Cyient Inc. (Formerly InfoTech); Parametric Solutions, Inc.; & Agilis Engineering, Inc.
If You Were Employed As An Engineer Or Other Skilled Employee At Any Time From 2011 To September 2019 At Pratt & Whitney; QuEST Global Services-NA, Inc.; Belcan Engineering Group, LLC; Cyient Inc. (Previously InfoTech); Parametric Solutions, Inc.; Agilis Engineering, Inc., Or One Of Their Wholly-Owned Subsidiaries, You Are Encouraged To Contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. , John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], [email protected], To Discuss The Firm’s Aerospace Antitrust Investigation Or Potential Legal Claims.
Six Aerospace Executives and Managers Indicted For Leading Roles In Labor Market Conspiracy That Limited Workers’ Mobility And Career Prospects
On December 16, 2021, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that a federal grand jury in Bridgeport, Connecticut, returned an indictment charging a former manager of a major aerospace engineering company and five executives of outsource engineering suppliers (“Suppliers”) for participating in a long-running conspiracy to restrict the hiring and recruiting of employees among their respective companies. The conspiracy affected thousands of engineers and other skilled workers in the aerospace industry who perform services in the design, manufacturing and servicing of aircraft components for both commercial and military purposes.
According to the one-count felony indictment unsealed today in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, six individuals — Mahesh Patel (“Patel”), of Connecticut; Robert Harvey, of South Carolina; Harpreet Wasan, of Connecticut; Steven Houghtaling, of Connecticut; Tom Edwards, of Connecticut; and Gary Prus, of Florida — conspired with unnamed others to allocate employees by agreeing not to hire or solicit employees from each other’s companies.
This indictment is the first in an ongoing investigation into labor market allocation in the aerospace engineering services industry. Patel, described as a leader of the conspiracy given his position and authority as the Suppliers’ common customer, was previously charged by complaint. He was arrested and appeared before a federal magistrate judge on the charge last week, and was released on a $100,000 appearance bond. The remaining defendants are expected to appear before federal district courts in different districts this week.
According to the indictment, the defendants and co-conspirators recognized the mutual financial benefit of the conspiracy — namely, reducing the rise in labor costs that would occur when aerospace workers were free to find new employment in a competitive environment. Patel and certain other co-conspirators explicitly appealed to this financial benefit when communicating with each other about the agreement.
The maximum penalty under the Sherman Act for a conspiracy to restrain trade is 10 years of imprisonment and a fine of $1 million. The maximum fine may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims of the crime if either amount is greater than the statutory maximum fine.
Aerospace “No-Poach” Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit
On December 14, 2021, a class action complaint was filed in United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf of engineers and other similarly skilled employees, based on alleged unlawful “no-poach” agreements among the aerospace engineering firms, which was intended to restrain competition in the relevant labor markets.
The Defendant aerospace-related companies named in the class action lawsuit (i.e., Pratt & Whitney; QuEST Global Services-NA, Inc.; Belcan Engineering Group, LLC; Belcan Engineering Group Limited Partnership; Cyient Inc.; Parametric Solutions, Inc.; Agilis Engineering, Inc.) are major competitors for engineering services, and they compete with one another to attract, hire, and retain engineers and other skilled employees.
According to the complaint, beginning at least as early as 2011 and continuing through at least 2019, senior executives and managers at the Defendant companies entered into a conspiracy not to solicit, recruit, hire without prior approval, or otherwise compete for employees, including engineers and other skilled employees.
Allegedly, the Defendant companies agreed to restrict competition for their employees’ services with the purpose and effect of fixing, suppressing, and stabilizing wages, salaries, and benefits and restraining competition in the market for their employees’ services. Further, the Defendants’ agreement to fix, suppress, and stabilize wages, salaries and benefits also, according to the complaint, restricted their employees’ mobility to access better job opportunities.
To view a copy of the antitrust class action complaint, please click Aerospace Engineering Class Action Complaint.
If You Were Employed As An Engineer Or Other Skilled Employee At Any Time From 2011 To September 2019 At Pratt & Whitney; QuEST Global Services-NA, Inc.; Belcan Engineering Group, LLC; Cyient Inc. (Previously InfoTech); Parametric Solutions, Inc.; Agilis Engineering, Inc., Or One Of Their Wholly-Owned Subsidiaries, You Are Encouraged To Contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. , John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], [email protected], To Discuss The Antitrust Investigation Or Potential Legal Claims.
