Tag: consumer class action

Claim a $35 or $85 Voucher Wilson DeMarini White Steel Bat Class Action Settlement

Who is a Class Member

You are included in the Wilson DeMarini White Steel Bat class action settlement if you purchased one or more new 13/14 White Steels from Wilson or an authorized dealer of Wilson in the United States from December 23, 2011 through June 6, 2018.

If you don’t qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other class action settlements you may be eligible for.

Estimated Award

  • Voucher for $35 or $85 depending on warranty claim

Class members who purchased a new 13/14 White Steel bat and completed a warranty claim with Wilson will receive a $85 Wilson Voucher.

Class members who initiated but did not complete the warranty process and provided Wilson with their contact information, proof of purchase and indicated the White Steel was the reason for their claim will also receive a $85 Wilson Voucher.

Class members who did not start or complete a warranty claim will receive a $35 Wilson Voucher as long as they can show proof of purchase.

Proof of Purchase

  • You will need to provide documentation you purchased a White Steel bat, such as a receipt, credit card statement, pictures, or prior contact with Wilson regarding the softball bat.

Claim Form

  • class action lawsuits

Wilson DeMarini White Steel Bat Settlement Notes

  • Hiroyuki Oda, et al. v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co.
  • Case No. 8:15-cv-02131
  • Pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

In December 2015, several named plaintiffs filed this class action lawsuit against Wilson Sporting Goods asserting claims that Wilson’s Demarini White Steel softball bats were more prone to crack and break during normal use than other generations of the same bat model.

Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that the bats (known as the 13/14 White Steel bats) “fail prematurely due to common defects” that include the chemical composition of the steel, an improperly placed seam in the middle of the barrel, insufficient thickness of the wall, and Wilson’s lack of quality control. The lawsuit contends Wilson violated California and federal laws by failing to disclose the alleged defects with the softball bats and complying with its express warranty.

Wilson contends that the 13/14 White Steels were properly designed and manufactured, and that the vast majority of them did not fail prematurely, and denies all allegations. Complete details about the case and settlement are provided on the Wilson DeMarini White Steel Bat settlement website.

Class members who wish to object to or exclude themselves from the Wilson DeMarini White Steel Bat settlement must do so by August 20, 2018. Class members who wish to participate in the settlement must submit a claim form on or before August 20, 2018.

Important Dates

  • 8/20/18: Claim Form Deadline
  • 8/20/18: Objection or Exclusion Deadline
  • 10/19/18: Final Hearing at 2:30 pm PT* (class members do not need to attend this hearing in order to receive a slice of the settlement pie).

*Settlement Class Members who wish to speak at the hearing should check www.WhiteSteelSettlement.com to confirm that the date or time of the Hearing has not been changed.

Contact Information

  • Mail: Wilson-Demarini 2013/14 White Steel Bats Settlement, c/o KCC Class Action Services, P.O. Box 404000, Louisville, KY 40233-4000
  • Phone: 1-877-468-0441
  • Email: info@WhiteSteelSettlement.com

Class Counsel

Settlement Website

Posted on by CAWClass 0

Kettle Brand Potato Chips Contain Synthetic Ingredients, Class Action Says

The maker of Kettle brand potato chips is once again under fire over allegations its potato chips are falsely labeled as being “Made with Natural Ingredients” and containing “No Preservatives”.

Plaintiff Denise Mason filed the false advertising class action lawsuit against Diamond Foods in New York federal court this week, claiming its Kettle brand potato chips are falsely labeled as being made with natural ingredients and without preservatives, when in fact they contain the synthetic preservative citric acid.

Consumers have become increasingly conscious in purchasing less processed foods free of additives and are willing to pay more for products that are made with natural ingredients and are free of preservatives. The Kettle brand potato chips class action lawsuit says that Diamond Foods has opted to mislead consumers as to the true nature of their products in order to capitalize on this consumer health trend.

Specifically, the Kettle brand potato chips products at issue in this class action lawsuit include:

  • Organic Sea Salt & Vinegar Potato Chips
  • Salt & Fresh Ground Pepper Krinkle Cut Potato Chips
  • Backyard Barbeque Potato Chips
  • Chili Lime Potato Chips
  • Buffalo Bleu Krinkle Cut Potato Chips
  • Sour Cream and Onion Potato Chips
  • Pepperoncini Potato Chips
  • Tropical Salsa Potato Chips
  • Fiery Thai Potato Chips
  • Country Style Barbeque Potato Chips
  • Honey Dijon Potato Chips
  • New York Cheddar Potato Chips

Mason claims that the “No Preservatives” labeling deceives consumers into believing that they are receiving healthier, preservative-free potato chips. Similarly, the “Made with Natural Ingredients” representations are misleading because the Kettle brand potato chips reportedly contain the preservative citric acid – a synthetic compound produced from certain strands of the black mold fungus Aspergillus niger, which is mass produced – as well as the chemical solvent sulfuric acid.

According to the Kettle brand potato chips class action lawsuit, Mason claims she relied on Diamond Foods’ labeling and had she and other consumers known the truth, they would not have purchased the Kettle brand potato chips.

Additionally, the complaint notes that “consumers cannot discover the true nature of the Products from reading the label” and that “discovery of the true nature of the content of the Products requires knowledge of chemistry that is not available to the average reasonable consumer.”

This is not the first time Diamond Foods has been accused of falsely marketing Kettle brand potato chips. In 2015, the company settled a similar class action lawsuit alleging its Kettle brand potato chips were falsely labeled as being “natural” or “preservative-free”.

In bringing this false advertising class action lawsuit, Mason is seeking to represent a nationwide Class of consumers who purchased the Kettle brand potato chip products, along with a New York subclass. She is asking for an order requiring “proper, complete, and accurate labeling of the Products,” as well as monetary and punitive damages.

Mason is represented by Michael J. Gabrielli of Gabrielli Levitt LLP. 

The Kettle Brand Potato Chips False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit is Denise Mason v. Diamond Foods LLC d/b/a Kettle Foods Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-06423-GHW, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Posted on by CAWClass 7

Nestlé Under Fire Over Misleading “No GMO Ingredients” Labeling

Nestlé is facing a proposed class action lawsuit alleging the company falsely labels certain products as containing “No GMO Ingredients”, when the in fact reportedly do.

Plaintiff Jennifer Latiff filed the Nestlé GMO class action lawsuit in California federal court last Friday. Latiff says that she purchased Nestlé products, specifically Lean Cuisine Marketplace frozen dinners and Coffee-Mate Natural Bliss creamer with the No GMO ingredients seal.

Many consumers are sensitive to genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, in their food and want to avoid them for a variety of reasons, including GMOs’ possible negative impact on the environment. As a result, many consumers, like Latiff, try to purchase products that are not derived from GMOs.

In an attempt to meet consumers’ demand for non-GMO products, an industry of independent, third-party validation companies has developed. These independent companies review the ingredients in products to assure that the products either do not contain GMOs, or do not come from animals fed GMO food. Thus, obtaining the approval from an independent third party allows companies to obtain an advantage in the market place over their competitors, in order to sell more products and charge higher prices.

However, according the Nestlé GMO class action lawsuit, Nestlé falsely represents to consumers that these and other products it sells have been certified by an independent third party as not containing GMO ingredients by affixing a No GMO Ingredients seal on the products. Unfortunately, the 18-page complaint contends that the No GMO Ingredients seal is not from a neutral third party, but instead the work of Nestlé itself attempting to capitalize on the consumer demand for non-GMO products.

“Looking to profit off consumer desire for independently validated products, Defendant has created a deceptive No GMO IngredientsTM seal of approval label that mimics the Non-GMO Project seal,” the Nestlé GMO class action lawsuit states.

Moreover, the lawsuit alleges that the ingredients in certain Nestlé products are in fact derived from GMOS. For example, Nestlé products that contain dairy come from cows fed GMO grains – a violation of the Non-GMO Project standard, which does not allow for its seal of approval to be placed on dairy based products that could be from animals fed GMO feed.

As a result of this alleged deceptive labeling practice, consumers paid significantly more to purchase a non-GMO product to avoid possible health and environmental risks associated with GMO products. In bringing this proposed class action lawsuit, Latiff is hoping to end Nestlé’s alleged false representations and help consumers recover their money spent. She is seeking to represent a nationwide Class of consumers who purchased any of Nestlé’s products bearing the No GMO Ingredients seal label.

Latiff is represented by Michael R. Reese and George V. Granade of Reese LLP and Daniel L. Warshaw and Bobby Pouya of Pearson Simon & Warshaw LLP.

The Nestlé “No GMO” Labeling Class Action Lawsuit is Jennifer Latiff v. Nestlé USA Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-06503, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division.

Posted on by CAWClass 2

Claim $20 or 30% of Property Damage Durapro Toilet Connector Class Action Settlement

Who is a Class Member

You are included in the Durapro Toilet Connector class action settlement if you “own or owned, or lease or leased, a residence or other structure in the United States containing an eligible DuraPro™ Toilet Connector with a plastic Coupling Nut. This also includes any person or entity that suffers or has suffered Property Damage caused by the failure of a plastic Coupling Nut on a DuraPro™Toilet Connector.”

If you don’t qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other class action settlements you may be eligible for.

Settlement Amount

  • $16,500,000.00

Estimated Award

  • Up to $20 Per Toilet Connector or Up to 30% of Property Damage

Replacement of DuraPro Toilet Connector: For eligible claims submitted within two years of final approval of the Settlement, Claimants can receive a cash payment of $4 for each DuraPro Toilet Connector (up to 5 Toilet Connectors per residence or other structure) that they replace. The maximum cash payment for replacement of Toilet Connectors is $20.

Payment of Property Damage Due to Failure: Claimants can recover up to 30% of documented costs of repairs for Property Damage caused by the failure of a plastic Coupling Nut on a DuraPro Toilet Connector, with a minimum recovery of $4.

Proof of Purchase

Replacement of DuraPro Toilet Connector: You will need to provide evidence that the residence or other structure contained a Toilet Connector, such as (i) the Toilet Connector itself; (ii) a photograph of the Toilet Connector; or (iii) other form of proof satisfactory to the Claims Administrator.

Payment of Property Damage Due to Failure: To support your Damage Claim, you must submit any photographs of the Toilet Connector and Coupling Nut; labels, packaging, and purchase receipts; and reports that describe the cause of the loss. You will also need to submit documentation including receipts, invoices, estimates for damages not covered by insurance, explanation of benefits letters, proof of payment for all expenses not covered by an insurance carrier, and the amount of any deductible you paid.

Claim Form

  • class action lawsuits

DuraPro Toilet Connector Settlement Notes

  • Jacqueline D. Ajose, et al. v. Interline Brands Inc.
  • Case No. 14-cv-01707
  • Pending in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee

In August 2015, six named plaintiffs filed this amended class action lawsuit against Interline Brands over allegations the company manufactured and sold defective DuraPro Toilet Connectors, which caused substantial water damage to consumers’ property. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Interline knew about the defective condition of their DuraPro Toilet Connectors’ plastic coupling nuts.

In plaintiff Jacquelyn D. Ajose’s case, after returning home, she discovered that Interline’s DuraPro brand Toilet Connector failed in a third floor bathroom causing water to run unabated throughout her home. As a result of the Toilet Connectors’ failure, Ajose suffered major out-of-pocket damages including, but not limited to, payment of her property insurance deductible. Similar experiences were echoed by other plaintiffs.

Interline denies the allegations but agreed to settle the case for $16.5 million. Complete details about the case and settlement are provided on the DuraPro Toilet Connector settlement website.

Class members who wish to object to or exclude themselves from the DuraPro Toilet Connector settlement must do so by August 20, 2018. The deadline to file a claim will be 2 years after the final approval order (10/19/2020). Class members who wish to file a claim for property damage can do so for four years after the final approval order (10/19/2022).

Important Dates

  • 8/20/18: Objection or Exclusion Deadline
  • 10/19/18: Final Hearing at 1:00 pm CT* (class members do not need to attend this hearing in order to receive a slice of the settlement pie).

*Settlement Class Members who wish to speak at the hearing should check www.DuraProToiletConnectorSettlement.com to confirm that the date or time of the Hearing has not been changed.

Contact Information

  • Mail: Ajose v. Interline Claims Administrator, c/o Epiq, P.O. Box 2876, Portland, OR 97208-2876
  • Phone: 1-855-349-6393
  • Email: info@DuraProToiletConnectorSettlement.com

Class Counsel

Settlement Website

Posted on by CAWClass 0