Apple Class Action Says Every Apple Watch Model Is Defective

A nationwide consumer class action lawsuit filed against Apple claims that every single Apple Watch model is defective and is seeking to hold the tech giant accountable to its customers to the tune of $5 million.

Plaintiff Kenneth Sciaccia of Colorado filed the lawsuit in federal court last week seeking justice for him and other Apple Watch purchasers. Sciacca alleges that the Apple watches all contain the same defect which causes the screens on the watches to crack, shatter, or detach from the body of the watch, through no fault of the wearer, and oftentimes only days or weeks after purchase.

Apple starting selling its watches in April 2015, when it introduced its Series 0 Watches to consumers. Since then, the company has released two additional generations of the Apple Watch: the Series 1 and Series 2 watches; and the Series 3 Watch.

According to the Apple Watch class action lawsuit, shortly after the release of the Series 0, consumers began to complain that their screens on their Apple Watches were spontaneously detaching from the body of their Watches. Apple denied any widespread issue with Series 0 Watches, but in April 2017, Apple acknowledged a swelling battery defect in certain Series 0 Watches and extended its Limited Warranty for qualifying Series 0 Watches from one year to three years.

Apple began to sell its Series 1 and Series 2 Watches in September 2016. Shortly thereafter, consumers who purchased the Series 1 and Series 2 Watches complained that the screens on their Series 1 and Series 2 Watches had cracked, shattered, or completely detached from the body of their Watches. Like the Series 0 purchasers, these consumers took their defective watches to Apple Stores, contacted Apple Support, and posted their complaints on the “Communities” forum on Still, Apple denied any widespread issue but similarly acknowledged a swelling battery defect in certain Series 2 Watches and extended its Limited Warranty for qualifying Apple Watches. Similar situations also occurred with Series 3 Apple Watches.

In Sciaccia’s case, he purchased a Series 2 Stainless Steel 38mm Apple Watch in December 2016. Around March 2018, the screen on Sciacca’s Apple Watch unexpectedly detached from the body shortly after he removed the watch from its charger. Sciacca says he contacted a certified Apple Store where store employees examined Sciacca’s Watch and verified the issue, but determined that the Watch’s screen detached because of “non-warrantable damage,” rather than a swollen battery. Because the employees determined Sciacca’s Watch was not covered under Apple’s Limited Warranty, they quoted him $249 to repair his Watch. Sciacca declined this offer.

Sadly, Sciacca’s experience is reportedly identical to the experiences of thousands of Apple Watch owners. Apple forums are full of complaints about the defective watches and Apple’s refusal to cover its product under its Limited Warranty. Indeed, Apple’s response in each case is the same: it implicitly or expressly blames the consumer for the Defect and refuses to cover repairs under the Limited Warranty.

By bringing this class action lawsuit, Sciacca hopes to hold Apple accountable for the alleged defective watches. He is seeking to represent a Class consisting of all current and former consumer owners of all models and sizes of First Generation, Series 1, Series 2, and Series 3 Apple Watches purchased in the United States, as well as a Colorado subclass.

Sciacca and the proposed classes are represented by Kolin C. Tan of Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah LLP.

The Apple Watch Class Action Lawsuit is Sciacca v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-3312, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Knorr Pasta Sides Alfredo Products Underfilled By 40%, Class Action Says

The maker of Knorr Pasta Sides Alfredo products is facing a consumer class action lawsuit alleging customers aren’t getting what they are paying for because the products are 40 percent empty space.

When plaintiff Kaveh Fasih purchased a Knorr Pasta Sides Alfredo product back in January in San Diego, she expected to receive a full container of the product. Instead she was surprised and disappointed when she opened the Knorr Pasta Sides Alfredo to discover that the container was nearly half-empty, or slack-fill. Seeking to hold Unilever, the maker of Knorr Pasta Sides Alfredo, accountable for this alleged intentional deception, Faish decided to take legal action.

“Had Plaintiff known the truth about Defendant’s misrepresentations, she would not have purchased the Knorr Pasta Sides Alfredo product,” the Knorr Pasta Sides class action lawsuit states.

According to the Knorr Pasta Sides class action lawsuit, slack fill is air or filler material within a packaged product. Non-functional slack fill is slack fill that serves no legitimate purpose, and misleads consumers about the quantity of the food they are purchasing.

The Knorr Pasta Sides Alfredo products are sold in non-transparent containers so customers think they are actually getting a full container of the product because they cannot see the actual contents of the container. Essentially, consumers are misled into believing that they are purchasing substantially more Knorr Pasta Sides product than they receive because the containers are comprised of empty space, or non-functional slack-fill.

Nowadays, consumers have come to expect significant slack fill in food products, but this does not excuse Unilever’s alleged deception in underfilling Knorr Pasta Sides Alfredo products, Kasih contends. Faced with a large box and a smaller box, both with the same amount of product inside, consumers are naturally apt to choose the larger box because they think it’s a better value. Kasih asserts that Unilever knows this and purposely packages its Knorr Pasta Sides Alfredo products in opaque containers that are almost half empty to capitalize on consumers purchasing nature.

Kasih brings this proposed consumer class action lawsuit on behalf of herself and all other California consumers who purchased Knorr Pasta Sides Alfredo products with non-functional slack fill during the “applicable limitations period”. She is asking the court to award punitive and compensatory damages.

Kasih and the proposed classes are represented by Scott J. Ferrel of Pacific Trial Attorneys APC.

The Knorr Pasta Sides Alfredo Slack-Fill Class Action Lawsuit is Fasih. v. Unilever, Case No. 3:18-cv-010132-BEN-BLM, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

NutriMost Ultimate Fat Loss System FTC Refund (Pittsburgh Only)

Who is Eligible?

You are eligible to receive a partial refund if you purchased the NutriMost Ultimate Fat Loss System in the Pittsburgh, PA areas listed below between October 1, 2012 and August 9, 2016:

  • Churchill/Penn Hills
  • Greensburg
  • Greentree/Crafton
  • Irwin
  • Murrysville/Delmont
  • North Versailles
  • Ross Park Mall
  • Upper St. Clair

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

Settlement Amount

  • $2,000,000.00

Estimated Award

  • Partial Refund

Class members who submit a valid and timely Claim Form, can receive a partial refund.

Proof of Purchase

  • N/A.

Claim Form

  • class action lawsuits

NutriMost Ultimate Fat Loss System FTC Settlement Notes

  • Federal Trade Commission v. NutriMost LLC, et al
  • Case No. 2:17-cv-00509-NBF
  • Pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

The Federal Trade Commission will be issuing partial refunds to Pittsburgh area consumers who purchased the NutriMost Ultimate Fat Loss System.

In 2017, the FTC filed a complaint against the makers of the NutriMost Ultimate Fat Loss System, claiming that the product was deceptively marketed to consumers. According to the complaint, the System promised that users would experience substantial weight loss – up to 40 lbs or more in 40 days without restricting their diet. Many consumers paid upwards of $1,895 for the NutriMost System at the owner’s eight chiropractic locations.

Along with issuing partial refunds, NutriMost is barred from making misleading weight loss and health claims that are not supported with reliable scientific evidence and must disclose that the NutriMost System requires a diet of less than 800 calories per day.

Class members who wish to submit a claim for a partial refund must do so by July 16, 2018.

Important Dates

  • 7/16/18: Claim Form Deadline

Contact Information

  • Phone: 1-877-884-6069

Class Counsel

  • David Shonka, Dana C. Baragate, and Christopher D. Panek of Federal Trade Commission

Settlement Website

Walmart Faces Class Action Over Contaminated Romaine Lettuce

Walmart, Sam’s Club, and Taylor Farms are facing a nationwide class action lawsuit over allegations it sold packaged salad containing romaine lettuce that was contaminated with E.coli bacteria, despite being labeled as “triple washed and ready to enjoy.”

Plaintiffs RIck Musgrave and Margaret Gray brought the Walmart class action lawsuit on the heels of a multi-state outbreak of Shiga toxin-producing E. coli infections and the subsequent CDC announcement that romaine lettuce from farms in the Yuma, Arizona growing region was the likely source out the outbreak. People across 25 states reported E. coli infections linked to the contaminated romaine lettuce. Thirty-one people were hospitalized, including five who developed kidney failure. There was also one recorded death.

Taylor Farms produces romaine lettuce crops in Arizona and sells its products in Walmart and Sam’s Club stores. The packaged lettuce products are marketed as “fresh, handcrafted salads that are convenient, ready-to-eat” and “triple washed and ready to enjoy,”

Shortly after news of the outbreak, Sam’s Club, which is owned by Walmart, issued a recall for Taylor Farms products with romaine lettuce, stating that “[w]e were notified that Taylor Farms, as a result of a Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) public advisory, has initiated a withdrawal on the items listed below due to the potential to be contaminated with E. coli.”

The recall listed the following Taylor Farms’ products with romaine lettuce:

  • Taylor Farms Fiesta Chopped Salad Kit with Grilled Chicken
  • Taylor Farms Southwest Chopped Salad
  • Taylor Farms Asian Chopped Salad
  • Taylor Farms Asian Chopped Salad
  • Taylor Farms Caesar Kit Family Size
  • Taylor Farms Chopped Romaine
  • Taylor Farms Romaine Blend
  • Taylor Farms Farmhouse Bacon Chopped Salad

According to court documents, Musgrave and Gray say that Walmart, while posting information about the Taylor Farms romaine lettuce recall on its website, the retail giant failed to offered refunds to its customers or post any notices in its stores regarding the contamination. This, they allege, put potentially tens of thousands of Taylor Farms consumers at risk for E.coli infections or worse.

“As a result of Defendants processing, manufacturing, distributing, and selling Taylor Farms’ products with romaine lettuce without taking the proper precautions, Defendants placed in the stream of commerce products that are unusable, unsafe, and have caused purchasers and consumers of those products to suffer or potentially suffer illness, as well as the loss of monies.”

In fact, Musgrave shares that he and his wife became violently sick for several days after purchasing and consuming the contaminated Taylor Farms romaine lettuce products. Additionally, Gray details in the Walmart contaminated romaine lettuce class action that she became ill with stomach issues after purchasing and consuming Taylor Farms Romaine Blend Salad.

Both plaintiffs are seeking to represent a nationwide class of consumers who purchased Taylor Farms Romaine Lettuce Products between February 1, 2018 to the present, as well as a California subclass. They are asking the court to award punitive damages along with restitution.

Musgrave and Gray are represented by Timothy Fisher, Blair E. Reed, and Scott A. Bursor of Bursor & Fisher PA.

The Walmart Contaminated Romaine Lettuce Class Action Lawsuit is Musgrave, et al. v. Taylor Farms Pacific Inc., et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-02841-SBA, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California