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.
Jan 9, 2017 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
A class-action lawsuit filed on December 13, 2016 in United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, Malhotra, et al. v. Kohl’s Corporation and Mercantile Adjustment Bureau LLC, claims Kohl’s violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) by, allegedly, failing to include required disclosure language on Kohl’s debt collection letters.
Kohl’s Debt Collection Letters
The complaint alleges that the plaintiff received a collection letter, dated December 11, 2015, from Kohl’s stating that plaintiff’s debt is owed and should be paid to Kohl’s. According to the complaint, Mercantile Adjustment Bureau (“MAB”) subsequently sent the plaintiff a collection letter, dated January 15, 2016, stating that the current and original creditor is Capital One, N.A. Plaintiff claims that he is uncertain whether his creditor is Kohl’s or, as claimed by MAB, Capital One, N.A.
Why do the collection letters matter?
According to the class-action lawsuit, if the debt is owed to Capital One N.A., then, per the FDCPA, Kohl’s is a debt collector; if the debt is owed to Kohl’s, MAB’s collection letter is false.
Of significance, the plaintiff claims, among other things, that Kohl’s violated the FDCPA by failing to:
“. . . send the consumer a written notice containing a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the [debt collection] notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to valid by the debt collector[;]”
“. . . send the consumer a written notice containing a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector[;]” and
“. . . send the consumer a written notice containing a statement that, upon the consumer’s written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original debtor, if different from the current creditor.”
Moreover, the lawsuit claims that one, if not both, debt collection letters were deceptive in violation of the FDCPA by not clearly and explicitly conveying the name of the creditor to which plaintiff’s debt is owed and, thus, “. . . us[ed] a false, deceptive and misleading representation in [an] attempt to collect a debt.”
Who may have been affected?
Anyone who owed a debt to Kohl’s and received similar letters attempting to collect on that debt may be eligible to join the suit. While the current claim only applies to New York residents, residents of other states who received similar letters may be eligible to bring their own claims.
What can those who may have been affected do?
The Kehoe Law Firm is ready to help. Anyone who has incurred a debt primarily for personal, family or household purposes and received a Kohl’s debt collection letter 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 6, 2017 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung”) in United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges that Samsung QWERTY remotes, included with certain Samsung Smart TVs, has a design defect that leads to excessive heat and premature device failure. In the worst cases, the defect can cause the remote’s batteries to catastrophically fail and leak acid.
Samsung’s Alleged Defective Design
According to the complaint, Samsung designed the remotes to allow for easier use of its Smart TVs – television sets with built-in Internet connectivity. The two-sided remotes featured what appeared to be a traditional television remote on one side, and a keyboard on the opposite side. The remotes, however, contained much more sophisticated electronics, including Bluetooth technology, which the remotes used instead of infrared beams to send information to the television sets. The complaint alleges that the Bluetooth technology and other electronics require a stronger power source, but rather than build the remotes with a stronger battery, Samsung “defectively shoehorned four AAA-sized batteries into the middle of the remote.” According to the complaint, this design is defective and causes the QWERTY remotes to generate excessive heat, prematurely fail, and cause their batteries to leak a dangerous substance.
Why does Samsung’s alleged defective design matter?
Besides the possible harm that could be caused by a battery leaking acid, the complaint states that Smart TVs that include the remote are sold at a premium compared to televisions sold without the remotes. Further, the QWERTY remotes themselves are more expensive to replace than standard infrared remotes. If the defect causes the remotes to prematurely fail, consumers are not getting the additional value that they paid for when they purchased the marked-up Smart TVs.
Who may have been affected?
Anyone who purchased a Samsung television that included a remote control, model number BN59-01134B, may be eligible to bring a claim. The remote, pictured below, features what appears to be a standard remote on one side, and a QWERTY-type keyboard on the opposite side.
What can those who may have been affected do?
The Kehoe Law Firm is ready to help. Anyone who believes they have purchased a defective remote 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.
Dec 27, 2016 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
In a recent press release, Quest Diagnostics Incorporated (“Quest”) announced that it was investigating an unauthorized third-party intrusion into one of its Internet applications that compromised the Protected Health Information (“PHI”) of approximately 34,000 individuals.
Quest’s Data Breach
According to the press release, on November 26, 2016, an unauthorized third party accessed Quest’s MyQuest by Care360 application and obtained information including names, dates of birth, lab results, and, in some instances, telephone numbers. Quest stated that the information accessed did not include Social Security numbers, credit card numbers, insurance or other financial information. Quest stated that the vulnerability in its application was immediately addressed and that Quest is taking steps to prevent similar incidents from happening in the future.
Who may have been affected?
According to the press release, approximately 34,000 individuals have been affected, and Quest has notified them all by mail.
What can those who may have been affected do?
Anyone who feels they may have been harmed by the breach can contact the Kehoe Law Firm for help. Those who have been notified by Quest that their information was affected and has noticed unusual activity related to their Protected Health Information can speak to an attorney for a free, no-obligation consultation by calling Michael Yarnoff, Esq. at (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.
