Dec 5, 2016 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Southern Telecom, Inc. (“Southern Telecom”), a manufacturer of audio components, has been sued in United States District Court in the District of Massachusetts. The complaint alleges Southern Telecom misled consumers by manufacturing a stereo tower speaker that appears to have four speakers, when, in fact, two of the speakers are non-operational “dummy” components.
Southern Telecom’s Alleged “Dummy” Components
According to the complaint, the plaintiff purchased a Polaroid Bluetooth Tower Speaker, model number PBT3012, through Amazon.com. The product, pictured right, appears to have four speakers, however, only the top and bottom speakers are operational. A photograph of the interior of the product, provided in the complaint, shows that the middle speakers lack any basic parts and wiring that would make them functioning speakers.
Why do the “Dummy” components matter?
According to the complaint, the plaintiff would not have purchased the product had it not been for the false impression that it had four speakers. By including the “dummy” components, Southern Telecom is giving consumers the false impression that their product is worth a high price. As a result, consumers may be paying more for the product than they would if the two working speakers were the only ones displayed.
Who may have been affected?
Anyone who purchased a Polaroid speaker, model PBT3012, may have been harmed by the alleged misrepresentation by Southern Telecom. Although the plaintiff in the complaint purchased the product on Amazon.com, the Polaroid speaker is sold through multiple channels including Big Lots and Bed Bath & Beyond.
Southern Telecom also manufactures similar tower speakers under different brands. Other models include the Sharper Image Stereo Tower Speaker, model SBT1012, and the Art+Sound Bluetooth Wireless Tower Speaker, model AR1002. While it is unknown whether these models actually contain dummy components, their similarity to the Polaroid speaker may warrant further investigating.
What can those who may have been affected do?
The Kehoe Law Firm is ready to help. Anyone who believes they have purchased speaker with dummy components manufactured by Southern Telecom 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 5, 2016 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
A class action lawsuit has been filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Premier Nutrition Corporation (“Premier”), the maker of Joint Juice, a dietary supplement. The class action litigation alleges that Premier falsely advertised that Joint Juice would provide certain health benefits to those who consumed the product.
Premier’s Alleged False Claims About Joint Juice
According to the complaint, Premier advertised that Joint Juice, through the ingredient glucosamine hydrochloride, would “support and nourish cartilage, lubricate joints, and improve joint comfort.” However, numerous studies cited in the complaint show consuming glucosamine hydrochloride has no health benefits, and beverages like Joint Juice only provide a placebo effect.
Why does Premier’s alleged false advertising matter?
The plaintiff in the complaint purchased Joint Juice based on Premier’s alleged false claims of health benefits. The complaint further alleges that the claimed health benefits are the only reason a consumer would purchase Joint Juice. If the plaintiff and other consumers were aware that Joint Juice did not actually provide health benefits, they would never have purchased the product.
Who may have been affected?
Anyone who purchased Joint Juice based on Premier’s claimed health benefits may be able to bring a claim or join a class action. According to the complaint, Premier sold Joint Juice through various stores including Costco, Sam’s Club, Walgreens, Walmart, and Target. Premier also sold Joint Juice directly through its website. Joint Juice is sold in various forms, including drink mix packets, eight-ounce beverage bottles, and “Easy Shot” bottles.
What can those who may have been affected do?
The Kehoe Law Firm is ready to help. Anyone who purchased Joint Juice based on the claimed health benefits 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.
Nov 21, 2016 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
A class action complaint has been filed in Superior Court of New Jersey against Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. (“Bed Bath & Beyond”) alleging the retailer failed to properly pay certain employees for over-time for a two-year period.
Bed Bath & Beyond’s Alleged Overtime Calculations
According to the complaint, Bed Bath & Beyond wrongly categorized Department Managers, Assistant Store Managers, and Customer Service Representatives as exempt employees. Had they been properly categorized, they would have been paid one and a half times their rate for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week as required by New Jersey law. Instead of using the required calculations, Bed Bath & Beyond used a “Fluctuating OT” formula to calculate overtime wages.
What’s wrong with the “Fluctuating OT” formula?
According to the complaint, the Fluctuating OT formula denied employees pay for all of their hours worked and denied them wages in accordance with New Jersey law. The Fluctuating OT formula calculated overtime wages based on the following formula:
base weekly salary
all hours worked/ 2 × all hours worked over 40 in the week = additional pay
Based on the information supplied in the complaint, an employee who earned a weekly salary of $700 who worked 50 hours in a week should earn $262.50 in overtime pay using the proper formula. Under the Fluctuating OT formula, however, that same employee only earns $70.00 in overtime.
Who may have been affected?
The complaint filed in New Jersey applies to individuals employed by Bed Bath & Beyond who worked in New Jersey as either Department Managers, Assistant Store Managers, or Customer Service Representatives within the last two years who worked over 40 hours per week and were not paid one and a half times their rate for those hours beyond 40.
Bed Bath and Beyond employees in states with laws similar to New Jersey may also have been affected if their overtime wages were based on the Fluctuating OT formula. Similarly, although the complaint refers specifically to Department Managers, Assistant Store Managers, and Customer Service Representatives, anyone who was not paid properly for their overtime may also have been wrongly categorized as exempt employees by Bed Bath & Beyond.
What can those who may have been affected do?
The Kehoe Law Firm is ready to help. Current and former employees of Bed Bath & Beyond who believe they have been denied proper overtime wages 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.
Nov 15, 2016 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Lawsuits have been filed claiming that certain bed linens manufactured by Welspun India Ltd. (“Welspun”) were falsely labelled as being made from 100% Egyptian cotton.
Retailer Reviews Reveal The Truth
According to one complaint, on August 19, 2016, Target Corporation (“Target”), which sold Welspun’s sheets under the Fieldcrest brand, announced that a review it conducted confirmed that Welspun substituted non-Egyptian cotton in some of the bed linens manufactured between August 2014 and July 2016. Target also announced that it was terminating its relationship with Welspun and would phase out all Welspun products. Several days after the Target announcement, on August 22, 2016, Welspun stated it would take responsibility for the mislabeling.
After Welspun’s admission, on August 23, 2016, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (“Walmart”), which sold Welspun’s bed linens under the brands Better Homes and Garden and Canopy, announced that it would also review Welspun’s products. On September 9, 2016, Wal-Mart announced that it would discontinue selling Welspun’s bed linens because Welspun could not offer assurances that its products were made from 100% Egyptian cotton. Another complaint, however, filed against Walmart, alleges that the retailer was aware of problems with Welspun’s sheets since 2008.
Why does the labeling matter?
Sheets made from Egyptian cotton are of a higher quality than standard bed linens and, therefore, command a higher price. If the sheets were actually made from standard materials, consumers may have been tricked into paying a higher price for what they thought were better quality sheets. Further, if a retailer knew of the false labeling and continued to sell the sheets, as is being alleged against Walmart, it could also be held liable in a suit.
Who may have been affected by the false labeling?
According to a complaint, the Welspun bed linens were sold at various retailers including Target, Walmart, JCPenney, Kohls and Bed Bath & Beyond. The bed linens were labelled either “100% Egyptian Cotton” or “100% Long-Staple Egyptian Cotton” and were sold under various brand names including Fieldcrest (Target), Better Homes and Garden (Walmart), Canopy (Walmart), Jennifer Lopez (Kohl’s), and Crowning Touch (Bed Bath & Beyond.)
What can those who may have been affected do?
The Kehoe Law Firm is ready to help. Those who believe they purchased the falsely labelled sheets 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.
Oct 27, 2016 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
On Thursday, October 27, 2016, a class action complaint was filed in United States District Court in the Northern District of California against Facebook, Inc (“Facebook”). The complaint alleges that Facebook inflated the amount of views advertising on the social media site received and, therefore, individuals who purchased video ads were induced by fraudulent information.
What are Facebook’s video metrics?
The complaint alleges Facebook provided “video metrics” to give providing advertisers information such as video views, unique video views, average duration of the video view, and audience retention. The metrics were a means for advertisers to make informed decisions about their advertising purchases.
Specifically, one video metric, the average duration of video viewed, or the “durations metric,” purported to measure the average length of time consumers spent viewing the advertiser’s posted video advertisement.
Facebook admitted its video metric was inflated.
On or about September 23, 2016, Facebook admitted on its business page that it found an error in the way it calculated the duration metric. Although the metric should have reflected the total time spent watching a video divided by the total number of people who played the video, it reflected the total time spent watching a video divided by only the number of “views” of a video. A video was considered viewed when it was watched for three or more seconds. Facebook admitted to the Wall Street Journal that this calculation error meant the duration metric had been artificially inflated by 60%-80% for two years.
Why does Facebook’s miscalculation matter?
According to the complaint, advertisers used the Facebook duration metric to monitor how much time consumers were spending viewing their advertisements in order to determine the advertisement’s effectiveness. By misrepresenting the average time consumers spent watching posted advertising videos, Facebook induced advertisers to continue to purchase video advertisements based on the belief that the advertisements were more successful than they actually were. Because of the inflated data, advertisers purchased advertising they would not have otherwise purchased or purchased advertising at a higher rate than they would have otherwise spent.
Who may have been affected by Facebook’s miscalculation?
According to the complaint, anyone located in the United States who had an account with Facebook and purchased two or more video advertisements of 10 seconds or more in duration from May 4, 2014 to September 23, 2016 may have been affected.
What can those who may have been affected do?
The Kehoe Law Firm is ready to help. Those who believe they have been injured by Facebook’s misrepresentations 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.
