US Class Action over Children’s Online Facebook Purchases

April 21, 2015 - Facebook, Inc. faces a nationwide class action lawsuit that seeks refunds for purchases children made on Facebook social media company’s website without parental permission. San Jose, California’s U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman said plaintiffs numbering in the hundreds of thousands should press their claim against Facebook to change their online policy regarding purchases by minors.

The judge also stated that plaintiffs would need to seek individual refunds because any refunds would differ for each case making it impossible to seek group compensation/refunds under U.S. Supreme Court precedent. A trial date was set for October 19^th.

Facebook responded to the lawsuit stating that they think the case lacks merit. They will be defending themselves wholeheartedly.

According to details outlined in the 2012 lawsuit against Facebook, the social media site allows minors to use their parents’ credit cards to purchase Facebook Credits (online, virtual currency). When parents complained about the purchases made without their permission, Facebook declined their requests for refunds pointing towards their “all sales are final” policy. The suit claims that this response violates California law. Judge Freeman stated that state law offers protection for parents as children sometimes have a lack of judgment when it comes to purchases. Facebook responds that plaintiff claims are too disparate – that they won’t be addressed by an injunction.

The Facebook Credits previously mentioned were discontinued in 2013. The new system in place is called Facebook Payments. The lawsuit was brought by a set of parents and their children. Many wait to see how the case will end and wonder if there will be a possibility that it will set a precedent regarding the treatment of “minor” members of social media sites.

For additional information on becoming a class member or what warrants a class action lawsuit, contact the experts at southern California’s Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Class Action: Weitz and Luxenberg vs. Lumber Liquidators, Inc.

April 15, 2015 -Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. filed a class action lawsuit seeking to make Lumber Liquidators home improvements retailer pay restitution. Consumers who purchased certain brands of laminate flooring discovered later that it was found to emit high levels of formaldehyde – high enough to be potentially dangerous to their health. The class action contains allegations that the Toano, Virginia based home improvements retailer was aware of the problem (that the levels of formaldehyde being emitted were unhealthy and cancer causing) and purposefully concealed the information from consumers in order to continue selling their tainted product.

California air quality standards are the most stringent in the nation. Weitz & Luxenberg claim that Lumber Liquidators went so far as to advise their customers that the laminate flooring’s formaldehyde emissions met those extremely high air quality standards when they did not.

Six plaintiffs were named in the class action filed in Manhattan in federal court. The plaintiffs named were from 3 different states: Texas, New York and New Jersey. The suit seeks financial reimbursement from Lumber Liquidators to provide members of the class who bought the dangerous flooring with a full refund for their purchase price, and associated costs (installation, delivery, removal, etc.) It has also been requested that Lumber Liquidators pay damages (as permitted by the various states) in regards to false advertising and additional violations of a variety of other consumer protection statutes.

The class action lawsuit is a civil litigation device. When compared to criminal law, it’s important to note that civil law deals with private disputes. A private dispute is one in which one party accuses a second party of some type of injury and sues for damages that occurred as a result of that injury. Injury can come in many forms: physical, psychological, emotional, or financial. Class actions are most useful in cases where you alone would be David to the other party’s Goliath. If you alone attempted to sue a major “Goliath” sized company, it would be a painful process with slim chances for success. The class action lawsuit allows all the “Davids” to get together in one suit, which allows them to obtain a “Goliath” size lawyer to fight for their case; drastically increasing the chances for the “everyday Joe’s” chance of success against major corporations and massive organizations.  

If you need additional information on forming a class action lawsuit, contact the southern California employment law experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

California Class Action Lawsuit Claims California Wineries are Lacing Products with Arsenic

April 8, 2015 -Many California wine lovers may be eyeing their favorite local wines with a more suspicious eye after recent accusations that 28 different California wineries are generating arsenic-laced products for the public. The class action lawsuit against the low-cost winemakers was filed earlier this month alleging that they were selling wines containing high levels of a known carcinogen: inorganic arsenic.

This alleged action would be in violation of California state law in which it prohibits knowingly producing, marketing and selling wine contaminated with arsenic. The 28 wineries are also accused of failing to provide consumers with a warning of the potential danger of their products. This is also a violation of California state law.

If you’re wondering if you harbor any of the potential offenders in your own wine collection you may want to be aware of the following brands of wineries included in the lawsuit: Glen Ellen, Beringer, Charles Shaw, and Sutter Home. In the lawsuit, it states that there was an independent testing completed by BeverageGrades out of Denver, Colorado. The lab completed tests for 1,306 different wines with 83 of them with “elevated” arsenic levels. The tests were initially completed in order to determine what the wines were “made of,” but after results were received they could only be described as very disturbing.

The Wine Institute, as a representative of over 1,000 wineries, responded to accusations saying that the allegations were “false and misleading.” They continued their statement to define arsenic as a natural element in the environment all around us: in our air, water, food and soil. Wines, as an agricultural product, will naturally contain trace amounts of arsenic (as do juices, vegetables, grains, etc.) They also stressed that there is no valid research that shows that the trace amounts of arsenic found in agricultural products such as wine pose a health risk for consumers. 

The lawsuit does not request specific financial recompense. Instead it seeks civil penalties and damages. For additional information on southern California class action lawsuits contact Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. 

Recruiting Manager Files Overtime Suit Against Robert Half

On September 5, 2014, a California recruiting manager filed an overtime suit against Robert Half International Inc. The recruiting manager, Theresa Daniels, worked at Robert Half as a recruiting manager from January 2014 through June 2014. She filed suit in San Mateo County Superior Court in California.

The suit filed by Ms. Daniels made a number of claims, including:

• The company misclassified her and other, similar employees as exempt from overtime.
• She and other, similarly classified employees, did not have managerial duties that would classify them as exempt from California overtime laws.
• She and other, similarly classified employees, did not have managerial authority.
• She and other, similarly classified employees, had only a minimal role in supervising employees and not authority to make employment related decisions regarding other employees.
• All recruiting managers, Theresa Daniels included, were strictly monitored and tightly controlled by both the company policy and their direct supervisors.

The suit seeks class action status and back overtime pay for unpaid wages.

Robert Half indicated that there are meritorious defenses to the allegations being made by Ms. Daniels and they will be defending themselves against litigation.

If you or someone you know are misclassified as exempt – preventing you from receiving the overtime pay you are entitled to at work, please contact your southern California employment law experts right away: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Preliminary Approval on Uncapped Settlement of Another NFL Concussion Lawsuit

U.S. District Court Judge Anita B. Brody rejected the previous $765 million concussion settlement between the NFL and former players with head trauma who were suing the league, but she offered preliminary approval of the more recent settlement produced saying the NFL would uncap the payments to former players suffering debilitating systems. The first settlement was thrown out because Judge Brody felt that the $765 million would be insufficient to cover the lifetime of the 65 year settlement. Her preliminary approval of the new settlement left the former players another step closer to receiving payment from the NFL. 

The plaintiffs are pleased with the preliminary approval and state that the settlement for retired NFL players and their families is extraordinary. It would apply to those suffering from neuro-cognitive illnesses today to any who suffered head injury without current signs of major damage, but who fear serious symptoms could develop in the future. The settlement would provide guaranteed benefits and long-term security. They look forward to finalizing the agreement.

The NFL’s response was to offer gratitude to Judge Brody for her guidance and thoughtful approach to the serious issues being addressed. They state that they will work with the plaintiffs’ counsel in order to implement the terms of the settlement as per the Court’s final decision.

According to the terms outlined for the compensation program, funds would be established and retired players would qualify to use the funds if they were to develop a qualifying neurocognitive condition. The plaintiffs now have 90 days to opt out or challenge the settlement. At that point in time Brody will be able to give her final approval of the settlement agreement.

For additional information or to ask questions regarding employment law please contact the experts at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.