Apr 24, 2020 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Class Action Alleges Electrical System of 2015-2019 Subaru Outback, Forester, WRX, Legacy, and Ascent Vehicles Subjects Vehicle Batteries and Charging Systems To A “Continuous Parasitic Drain” – Risk Of “Sudden Battery Failure”
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making consumers aware that on April 23, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in United States District Court, District of New Jersey, against Subaru of America, Inc. and Subaru Corporation (collectively, “Subaru”) on behalf of owners and lessees of 2015-2019 Model Year Subaru Outback, Forester, WRX, Legacy, and Ascent vehicles.
According to the complaint, “[t]he electrical system in [2015-2019 Model Year Subaru Outback, Forester, WRX, Legacy, and Ascent vehicles] subjects vehicle batteries and charging systems to a continuous parasitic drain. The batteries with which Subaru equipped the . . . [v]ehicles are thus too small to overcome the parasitic drain and power the . . . [v]ehicles as consumers reasonably expect automobile batteries to do, predisposing . . . [v]ehicles to sudden battery failure. The parasitic drain . . . is constant, even when their engines are not running.”
The complaint alleges that
[a]s Plaintiff and Class Members’ experiences demonstrate, each of Subaru’s ‘fixes’ has been ineffective; more than two years later, consumers are still complaining of premature and unexpected battery failure.
Despite knowing of the [d]efect at or about the time that they began to market the . . . [v]ehicles for sale or lease, Defendants failed to disclose the [d]efect to consumers. Nor has Subaru instructed its dealerships to disclose the [d]efect to Subaru’s customers.
Because of Subaru’s concealment, consumers were unaware that they were buying or leasing defective vehicles, and vehicle owners and lessees did not discover the [d]efect until their batteries failed and they were forced to pay out of picket to prematurely replace those batteries. [Emphasis added.]
Additionally, the complaint alleges that the defect in the aforementioned Subaru vehicles “. . . typically manifests after consumers have turned off their . . . [v]ehicles, stranding operators and their passengers and making them more vulnerable to potential crime, accidents if stranded on a roadside, and other risks that could have otherwise been avoided, such as small children or pets remaining trapped within locked vehicles that cannot be opened after the [d]efect manifests.”
Owners and lessees of 2015-2019 Model Year Subaru Outback, Forester, WRX, Legacy, and Ascent vehicles are encouraged to contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. to discuss potential legal claims.
Apr 24, 2020 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Lawsuit Claims Businesses Deprived Of Competitive Pricing For B2B Credit Scores – Fair Isaac Allegedly Has Maintained A 90% Monopoly Over The B2B Credit Score Market – Fair Isaac Accused Of Using Its Monopoly Power To Coordinate A Campaign To Eliminate Credit Score Competition
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making U.S. lenders, financial institutions, and other businesses who purchased FICO Credit Scores from Fair Isaac and/or a Credit Bureau aware that on April 23, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed against Fair Isaac Corporation (“Fair Isaac”) in United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, asserting claims under the Sherman Act, as a result of Fair Isaac’s alleged anticompetitive conduct.
Fair Isaac, according to the complaint, ” . . . 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.”
The complaint alleges that Credit Bureaus
TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax are credit reporting agencies that collect, standardize, and distribute information on consumer credit activity . . .. Credit Bureaus sell lenders, financial institutions, and other businesses credit reports and Credit Scores – including Fair Isaac’s FICO Scores – that are used to make decisions about whether and on what terms to evaluate and extend credit. Credit Bureaus sell those credit reports and Credit Scores to businesses in every state. For decades, Credit Bureaus have acted as Fair Isaac’s agents and co-conspirators to broker sales between businesses and Fair Isaac of the dominant FICO Scores. Fair Isaac has used these distribution agreements to place anticompetitive restrictions on the three dominant Credit Bureaus’ ability to develop or distribute competitive Credit Scores; prohibited Credit Bureaus from individually negotiating royalty prices for access to FICO Scores; charged discriminatory and prohibitively high royalty prices for FICO Scores if a Credit Bureau customer purchases a FICO Score while providing the consumer with a competing score; and increased the royalty prices that must be paid by Credit Bureaus. Nevertheless, the Credit Bureaus have agreed to, and acquiesced in, these restrictions. [Emphasis added.]
The complaint also alleges that
[t]hrough 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. [Emphasis added.]
U.S. businesses, such as lenders or financial institutions, which have purchased FICO Scores from Fair Isaac and/or one of the Credit Bureaus are encouraged to contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. to discuss potential legal claims.
Apr 23, 2020 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
FTC Sends 21 Letters Warning Marketers to Stop Making Unsupported Claims That Their Products and Therapies Can Effectively Treat Coronavirus
Apr 23, 2020 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
GE Service Provider Canon Business Process Services’ Data Security Incident
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is reminding consumers that GE submitted a “Notice of Data Breach” to the California Attorney General regarding a “data security incident” experienced by one of General Electric’s (“GE”) service providers, Canon Business Process Services, Inc. (“Canon”).
According to the data breach notification “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.” [Emphasis added.]
The data breach notification also stated that
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. [Emphasis added.]
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
A class action lawsuit was filed on April 2, 2020 against the General Electric Company and Canon Business Process Services, Inc. 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.”
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 23, 2020 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Lawsuit Alleges Defendants Participated In “Inclusive Access” Conspiracy Requiring Students To Obtain Course Materials In Online Format And From Their Official Campus Bookstore, Thereby Preventing Competition From Other Online Bookstores and Sellers
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making consumers aware that on April 22, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in United States District Court, District of New Jersey, against “the three dominant publishers of college and graduate school textbooks” and the “two dominant operators of official on-campus bookstores.” The named Defendants in the complaint are Barnes & Noble College Booksellers, LLC, Barnes & Noble Education, Inc., Cengage Learning, Inc., Follett Higher Education Group, McGraw Hill LLC, and Pearson Education, Inc.
According to the complaint:
The Defendants, the dominant publishers of college textbooks and dominant retail chains operating on-campus college bookstores, entered into [an] “Inclusive Access” conspiracy . . . in order to monopolize the market for sales of course materials in any courses and on any colleges in which the Inclusive Access policy applies. Inclusive Access requires students to obtain their course materials only in an online format and only from their official oncampus bookstore, and not from any other source, thereby preventing the Defendants from facing competition from new print textbooks, used print textbooks, and other online sources, and also from off-campus and online bookstores and sellers. Defendants’ monopolizing the market for the sale of course materials in Inclusive Access courses has allowed them to charge higher prices for those course materials with no legitimate justification, to the detriment of college and graduate students.
Inclusive Access increases students’ costs and eliminates their choices in order to increase the profits of textbook publishers and on-campus college bookstore retail chains. As one recent analysis found, ‘[p]hrases like ‘inclusive access’ may sound great for students. In reality, publishers reap the benefits while students have fewer options than ever to save money. These programs create a virtual monopoly, undercutting academic freedom and low-cost options.’ [Emphasis added.]
Inclusive Access, according to the complaint, “. . . does not have any advantages for students. Students pay higher prices, are forced to purchase electronic materials even if they prefer print, and they receive access to online materials with an expiration date as opposed to being able to save course materials for future reference or sell them for money after the class is over. Instructors have to waste class time explaining how to use the online materials, and technical problems or broken Internet connections can result in students losing access to the materials.”
Further, the complaint alleges that “the effect of Inclusive Access is to exclude any competition for textbook purchases by eliminating the secondary market and eliminating other sources for students to purchase the Inclusive Access textbooks – students’ only option is mandated purchases of Inclusive Access materials from the Publisher Defendants and (at the majority of campuses where Retailer Defendants operate the official on-campus bookstore) the Retailer Defendants.”
Are you a college or graduate student who was required to purchase textbooks or course materials through Inclusive Access?
College and graduate students who had to purchase textbooks or course materials through Inclusive Access are encouraged to contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. to discuss potential legal claims.
Apr 22, 2020 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. Is Making Consumers Aware of Entities Named As Defendants In Recently Filed Class Action Lawsuits Alleging Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
Albertsons Companies, Inc.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff received the following unsolicited marketing text message on Plaintiff’s cell phone from short code 46359:
Albertsons: Welcome to just for U. Here’s the link to finish your registration http://bit.ly/2zcbQgN Msg & Date Rates May Apply
The Plaintiff, allegedly, does not have an account with Defendant Albertsons, and has not shopped at Albertsons at least for a year prior to receiving the unsolicited text message.
Carepoint Healthcare, LLC and Other Unknown Defendants
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff received an unsolicited fax advertisement from Carepoint Healthcare, LLC advertising “Hydroxychloroquine 200 mg #20” tablets. The complaint alleges that “[l]arge amounts of [the] tablets are being furnished to hospitals and others actively treating COVID-19 patients free of charge, either pursuant to FDA trials or gratuitously by manufacturers,” and “Defendant sent the faxes to practitioners who would not ordinarily treat COVID-19 or anything else for which [the drug] is normally used, such as Plaintiff, a podiatrist.” The Plaintiff, according to the complaint, “had no prior relationship with Defendant and had not authorized the sending of fax advertisements to Plaintiff.”
CarGuard Administration, Inc., Vehicle Protection Specialists LLC, and Auto Protecht LLC
According to the complaint, one Plaintiff “received telemarketing calls promoting CarGuard’s goods or services” from (781) 288-5176, among other “‘spoofed’ Calleer ID numbers.” The other Plaintiff, allegedly, received “several telemarketing calls to promote CarGuard’s goods or services from Vehicle Protection.”
Command International Security, Inc., Nafees Memon, and Other Unknown Defendants
According to the complaint, the Defendants “contacted the Plaintiff via facsimile from telephone numbers confirmed to belong to Defendants, including without limitation (818) 827-3391.” The Plaintiff, according to the complaint, “. . . is not a customer of the Defendants services and has never provided any personal information, including his telephone facsimile number(s), to Defendant for any purpose whatsoever. Accordingly, Defendant never received Plaintiff’s ‘prior express consent’ to receive calls using a telephone facsimile machine . . ..”
ECA Marketing, Inc.
According to the complaint, ECA Marketing “regularly makes autodialed telephone calls to consumers in order to solicit business.” The Plaintiff, allegedly, received a call from (877) 941-5273 on his cell phone from ECA Marketing. The Defendant, allegedly, left a pre-recorded message which stated the following:
If your clients are like [pause] If your clients are like most Americans, they save the majority of their retirement assets in tax deferred vehicles like 401ks and IRAs. Tax rates go up, how much of their hard-earned money will they really get to keep? In David McKnight’s groundbreaking book, The Power of Zero, he provides you with a step by step road map on how to get to a 0% tax bracket effectively eliminating tax rate risk from your client’s retirement picture. Why is the 0% tax bracket so powerful? Because if tax rates double, two times zero is still zero. The day of reckoning is fast approaching. Are you ready to do what it takes to help your clients experience the power of zero? Go to pozfaststart.com, that’s pozfaststart.com to get your free kit. Take your first step to cranking up your marketing and request your free power of zero fast start kit. Included in the kit are twenty-five copies of the best-selling The Power of Zero hard covered books, twenty-five copies of The Power of Zero the tax [inaudible] Is Coming DVDs, an exclusive video guide featuring best-selling author and MPRT Top of the Table Agent David McKnight, and how to use both the books and the video for successful prospecting. You’ll also get a fast-acting bonus, cracking the iul code two virtual summit recordings on demand. Total value of this free offer is $1,994. Yours free, conditions and restrictions may apply. Go to pozfaststart.com, that’s pozfaststart.com. [Emphasis added.]
The Plaintiff, according to the complaint, “did not give ‘prior express consent’ to receive calls from an ATDS or leave a pre-recorded voice mail message,” and Defendant ECA Marketing’s “call was unsolicited and not in response to an inquiry from Plaintiff.”
Do You Believe You Are a Victim of Illegal Robocalls, Text Messages, “Junk” Faxes or Telemarketing Sales Calls?
If you have received illegal robocalls, text messages, “junk” faxes or telemarketing sales calls, you may be able to recover at least $500 for each illegal call, text or fax you received and, possibly, as much as $1,500 for each illegal call, text message or facsimile that was made either willfully or knowingly in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
To help evaluate your potential legal claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, please complete KLF’s confidential Robocall Questionnaire or, if you prefer to speak with an attorney, please complete the form above on the right, e-mail [email protected] or contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., [email protected], (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, for a free, no-obligation evaluation of your potential legal rights.
