Home Blog Page 183

Claim Up to $200 in Honest Company Dish Soap Class Action Settlement

0

Who is a Class Member

Anyone who has purchased (and kept) at least one of the Honest products below:

  • Honest Multi-Surface Cleaner (Regular)
  • Honest Multi-Surface Cleaner (Concentrate)
  • Honest Dish Soap (Regular)
  • Honest Dish Soap (Concentrate)
  • Honest Laundry Detergent

Qualifying class members must have purchased the items between January 17, 2012 and August 2, 2017.


Settlement Amount

$1,550,000


Proof of Purchase

Yes. Class members must provide proof of purchase in order to verify claims.


Claim Form

class action lawsuits


Important Dates

11/15/2017: Claim Form Deadline

11/15/2017: Opt Out Deadline

12/15/2017: Final Hearing


Settlement Notes

  • The Honest Company Inc, Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS) Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation
  • Case No. 2:16-ML-02719 AB (RAOx)
  • Pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division

Class members in the Honest Company false advertising lawsuit contend that Honest misrepresented their products as being free of sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS). Six claims would be settled if the preliminary settlement is approved upon final hearing. The class references Honest’s blog and social media posts as misleading potential consumers into believing the products are all natural.

Honest lists their products as a coconut-based cleaner that works as a softer alternative to SLS. However, contentions that it is fact the products consist of a substantial amount of SLS. Despite the claims, Honest persists against all allegations despite agreeing to a settlement in order to avoid unnecessary litigation.

Qualifying members may be eligible for compensation. The class may receive a cash distribution based on the level of purchasing and verification. An alternative option is for members to receive a settlement credit for Honest products valued at 1.5x the value of cash recovery.

Filing class members will be represented by Pearson Simon & Warshaw LLP and Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC. Honest Company is being defended by Cooley LLP.


Contact Information

Claims Administrator
Honest SLS MDL Settlement
c/o Dahl Administration
P.O. Box 3614
Minneapolis, MN 55403-0614

Phone: 1-866-791-2071

Email: info@SLSSettlement.com


Settlement Website

www.SLSSettlement.com

New York Staples Reaches $4M Settlement for Service Plan Class Action Lawsuit

0

Who is a Class Member

Anyone who purchased/enrolled in any “Extended Services Plans” from Staples in New York between the dates of February 1, 2010 and August 31, 2013.

*The class action lawsuit includes any product service plans that were run through Assurant and subsequently paired with computers, laptops, and other miscellaneous tablets/technology products.


Settlement Amount

Approximately $4,000,000


Proof of Purchase

Proof of purchase is not required assuming proper documentation at the issuance of an extended service plan. Class members who registered with the proper name will be automatically enrolled as qualifying. It is still encouraged that potential members submit a claim form on the settlement website. Purchase information must be included with the form.


Claim Form

class action lawsuits


Important Dates

02/01/2010 – 08/31/2013: Class Period

09/14/2017: Preliminary hearing.

11/27/2017: Exclusion deadline.

12/31/2017: Final hearing.

02/26/2018: Claim filing deadline.


Settlement Notes

  • Andrew Orlander v. Staples Inc.
  • Case No. 1:13-cv-00703-NRB
  • Pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Class members of the Staples service plan class action lawsuit claim Staples misrepresented their extended service plans and subsequently violated sections of New York General Business Law. Initial plaintiff Andrew Orlander filed suit against Staples in 2014 with the contention that Staples misled consumers as to the coverage of its extended plans. Staples’ service plans required use of a manufacturer’s warranty prior to the alternative offered by Staples, leading Orlander to believe customers were overcharged.

The defendants in the Staples service plan lawsuit are defined as the Staples Inc. locations in the state of New York. They will receive counsel from Thompson Hine LLP. Staples continues to deny any claims against the company, but has agreed to a settlement in an effort to avoid future litigation.The preliminary settlement came on September 14, 2017 with the final hearing scheduled for December 13, 2017. Settlement funds have been agreed to roughly $4,000,000 with qualifying members receiving a minimum of 11% of the price paid for a protection plan.

All class members who file valid claims in the case will be represented by Gardy & Notis LLP.


Contact Information

Claim Administrator
c/o Epiq Systems Inc.
P.O. Box 2876
Portland, OR 97208-2876

Phone: 1-888-457-2203
Email: info@staplessettlement.com


Settlement Website

www.StaplesSettlement.com

Frito-Lay All Natural Ingredients Class Action Lawsuit

0

Frito-Lay has agreed to remove the “made with all natural ingredients” labeling from its products in response to the class action lawsuit entitled Frito-Lay North America Inc. All Natural Food Litigation, which is Case No. 1:12-md-02413.  The case took place in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York and was a hard fought victory for the class action plaintiffs.

A number of similar class action lawsuits against Frito-Lay were consolidated into one claiming that Frito-Lay misled consumers into thinking several of its products did not contain genetically modified ingredients, or “GMOs.”  Frito-Lay denies any actions of wrong doing BUT could not guarantee they did not use GMO’s as bioengineered corn seeds make up about 90 percent of the U.S. corn supply.  The plaintiffs targeted the following Frito-Lay products in the lawsuit: Tostitos, SunChips and Fritos Bean Dip.

The class action plantiffs main goal from day one was to Frito-Lay revise its labeling to remove indications that the products were “all natural”.  Class members will not receive a payment (or coupon) in regards to Frito-Lay North America Inc. All Natural Food Litigation, but the class action plaintiff who brought the case forward will each receive a $5000 payment.  The Judge has also ordered Frito-Lay to spend $215,000 in order to publicize the terms of the settlement to the general public/class members.

The plaintiff in the Frito-Lay All Natural Ingredients class action lawsuit were represented by Ariana J. Tadler and Henry J. Kelston (Milberg LLP) and by Michael R. Reese and George V. Granade (Reese LLP).

Milberg LLP can be reached at 1-877-692-1965, ContactUs@milberg.com, or by mail at Milberg LLP, Attn: Shareholder Services, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, New York 10119.

Reese LLP can be reached at (212 643 0500), mreese[at]reesellp[dot]com, or by mail at 875 Avenue of the Americas, Eighteenth Floor, New York, New York 10001.

 

 

DISH TCPA Class Action Lawsuit

0

A class action lawsuit has been filed against DISH Network, L.L.C.in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina and it concerns Satellite Systems Network and their unauthorized phone calls to individuals or entities that are placed on the Nationwide Do Not Call List. The lawsuit is now pending and it is entitled Krakauer v. DISH Network, L.L.C., Case No.: 1:14-cv-33.

The plaintiff Thomas H. Krakauer says that Dish Network had authorized Satellite Systems Network to made phone calls to his number even after he had been placed on the National Do Not Call List. The calls often concerned telemarketing sales inquiry to promote or distribute DISH products. Because of the nature of this lawsuit, the Judge has allowed Krakauer to file the suit on behalf of those who received telemarketing calls between May 1, 2010, and August 1, 2011, from Satellite Systems Network soliciting sales for DISH products and to those who had also been on the National Do Not Call list for at least 30 days prior.

The lawsuit is currently ongoing and the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. Judge Catherine C. Eagles Eagles have declared that DISH Network and their affiliate Satellite Systems Network has violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act–47 U.S.C. 227–which explicitly bans the use of automated telephone programs and equipment as well as restrict the practice of telemarketing solicitation. Considering that DISH and SSN had violated the act and had made telemarketing calls to those who were on the Do Not Call list, Judge Eagles has tripled the payout amount in order to request additional persons to come forward and to “deter Dish and to give suitable weight to the seriousness and scope of the violations Dish committed.” The Federal Trade Commission created the Do Not Call registry in 2003 in an effort to cease persistent telemarketing phone calls.

The plaintiff is seeking $500 in damages per call received from SSN regarding DISH products from May 1, 2010, to August 1, 2011, and an additional $1,500 per class member. DISH Network has responded that they will appeal the jury’s decision in the class-action lawsuit.

For more information on Class Action claim specifications, you can visit http://www.dishclassaction.com/.