Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Zappos Lawsuit Filed Over Personal Information

Zappos.com and Amazon are being sued by a Kentucky woman. The woman alleges that Zappos and Amazon did not protect her personal information.

The woman's attorney is seeking class action status for the case in the U.S. District Court.

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Ticketmaster Class Action Settlement Proposed





SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA - COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES



CURT SCHLESINGER and PETER LO RE,
on behalf of themselves and the Class,
         v.
TICKETMASTER, a Delaware Corporation,
)
)
)
)
No. BC304565

NOTICE OF PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

This proposed settlement ("Settlement") is on behalf of a nationwide class of consumers (the "Class") who (1) purchased tickets on Ticketmaster's website, www.ticketmaster.com ("the Website") between October 21, 1999 and October 19, 2011 (the "Class Period"), (2) paid money to Defendant Ticketmaster for an Order Processing Fee ("OPF") that was not refunded, (3) did not and do not opt-out of the Class, and (4) were residents of one of the fifty United States at the time of their purchase. Excluded from the Class are (a) Ticketmaster, (b) any entities in which Ticketmaster has a controlling interest or which have a controlling interest in Ticketmaster, (c) the officers, directors, employees, affiliates, and attorneys of Ticketmaster, or (d) any employee or officer of the Court or their immediate family members.
The proposed Settlement is also on behalf of a nationwide subclass (the "UPS Subclass") of all Class Members who paid a delivery price for expedited delivery of their tickets via UPS (the "Delivery Price").
The Class asserts claims that Ticketmaster's OPF is excessive and deceptive. The UPS Subclass asserts claims that Ticketmaster's UPS delivery charges are excessive and deceptive.
If you are a member of the Class and do not opt out of this proposed Settlement as set forth below, the Settlement will resolve your claims if approved by the Court.
On May 29, 2012 at 8:30 a.m., there will be a Final Approval hearing for the Court to determine whether to approve the settlement described below. The hearing will be held before Judge Kenneth R. Freeman, in Department 64 of the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, located at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, California 90012.
The proposed Settlement will provide a combination of benefits to the Class and UPS Subclass. Additionally, Lead Class counsel (identified below) will apply for up to $16.5 million in attorneys' fees and expense reimbursements to counsel for the class and for an incentive award of $20,000 to each of the class representatives. Ticketmaster has agreed not to oppose that request and the Court will decide how much to award to Class counsel and the class representatives. The specific terms of the settlement are described in a Settlement Agreement and Release. This Notice does not change the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and is intended as a short summary of that document, which will be made available for your review on the Litigation Website as described below. In the event of any conflict between this document and the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the terms of the Settlement Agreement will govern.

1. WHAT THIS CASE IS ABOUT:

       Plaintiffs have alleged that Ticketmaster deceived and misled customers by representing that the Delivery Price was a pass-through of the amount that UPS charged Ticketmaster for that delivery and that Ticketmaster's OPF was also deceptive and misleading in that it did not actually represent Ticketmaster's costs in processing orders but rather was a profit generator which Ticketmaster required customers to pay.

       Ticketmaster denied all of these allegations, and has defended this litigation for the past eight years. In addition to denying the merits of Plaintiffs' claims, Ticketmaster opposed Plaintiffs' request that the Court certify this case as a class action.
       On February 5, 2010, the Court certified the case as a class action only on behalf of California residents who purchased tickets from the Website, including a subclass of consumers who also purchased UPS delivery for those tickets. Plaintiffs appealed that decision, to the extent the Court did not include consumers residing outside of California. In September, 2010, the Appellate Court ordered that the case should be certified as a nationwide class action, and the trial court thereafter issued an Order certifying a nationwide class covering purchases made from the Website from October 21, 1999 through May 31, 2010. In October 2010, pursuant to Court Order, Notice was sent via email, and published in the USA Today, advising members of the foregoing class of the certification and of their opportunity to opt-out of this case. Accordingly, this case is proceeding as a class action on behalf of that class. The class also has been expanded, by stipulation of the parties and order of the court , for purposes of this Settlement only, to include all consumers who (1) purchased tickets on Ticketmaster's website from June 1, 2010 through October 19, 2011, (2) paid money to Ticketmaster for an OPF that was not refunded, (3) did not and do not opt-out of the class, and (4) were residents of one of the fifty United States at the time of their purchase.
2. WHY THIS NOTICE IS BEING PROVIDED TO YOU:
After several mediation sessions before an impartial mediator, the parties have reached the proposed Settlement for this case on behalf of themselves and all Class Members and UPS Subclass Members. If you have received this notice by email, that is because Ticketmaster's records reflect that you are a member of the Class, and some members of the Class also are members of the UPS Subclass. The purpose of this notice is to inform you of the terms of the Settlement, the benefits available to you under it, how this lawsuit and the Settlement may affect your legal rights, important upcoming deadlines relating to the Settlement, and the steps you must take if you want to object to or opt out of the Settlement.
3. SETTLEMENT TERMS: If the Court approves the settlement, it will provide the following:
A. Monetary Benefits To Class Members.
(a) Class.
Each Class Member who (i) has an eligible claim, (ii) has not been convicted of a felony pertaining to his/her purchases of tickets over the Website and certifies that he/she has not been so convicted and also certifies that he/she did not use computer "bots" or other software to disguise his/her true identity and/or avoid the tickets per transaction limits on the Website, and (iii) has not filed a timely opt-out, as applicable, shall receive the following benefits: a code ("Code") for each purchase transaction (i.e. per order, not per ticket) entered into from the Website during the Class Period, (up to a maximum of 17 transactions/codes) entitling each Class Member to a credit in the amount of one dollar and fifty cents ($1.50) per transaction which will be deducted from future purchases from Ticketmaster on the Website for events occurring at venues located in the United States (excluding events at venues owned and operated by AEG). The Codes may be combined, up to a maximum of two credits totaling three dollars ($3.00). The Codes are non-transferable.
(b) UPS Subclass.
Each UPS Subclass Member who (i) has an eligible claim, (ii) has not been convicted of a felony pertaining to his/her purchases of tickets over the Website and certifies that he/she has not been so convicted and also certifies that he/she did not use computer "bots" or other software to disguise his/her true identity and/or avoid the tickets per transaction limits on the Website, and (iii) has not filed a timely opt-out, as applicable, will receive the following benefits (unless the payments you made for UPS already were refunded - for example, where you cancelled your purchase order on the same day you made the purchase order): for each purchase up to 17 transactions (per order, not per ticket) made over the Website during the Class Period, a credit in the form of a code (or codes) e-mailed to the UPS Subclass Member for five dollars ($5.00) off the Delivery Price on subsequent purchases from Ticketmaster on the Website of tickets that are shipped via UPS for events occurring at venues located in the United States (but excluding events at AEG owned and operated venues). These codes cannot be combined or aggregated (i.e. only one code may be used per order) and are non-transferable. A UPS Code may be combined with a ticket purchase Code, however.
(c) Issuance of Codes. Ticketmaster (or, at Ticketmaster's election, the Claims Administrator) will send the codes to Class and UPS Subclass Members at the last-known e-mail address in Ticketmaster's database within thirty (30) days after Final Approval2 but in no case prior to August 28, 2012, with instructions that they may be redeemed over the next forty-eight (48) months.

(d) Limitations on Redemption of Codes. Codes may be redeemed up to 48 months after distribution, at which time they will automatically expire. Codes may only be redeemed through the e-mail account to which they were sent unless the e-mail account is updated and verified (by Ticketmaster or the Claims Administrator) to belong to the same member of the Class or UPS Subclass, as applicable.
(e) Guaranteed Redemption Amount/Charitable Contributions. In the event that the minimum aggregate value of the OPF and UPS credit benefits redeemed in any given year during the forty-eight (48) month redemption period is less than $11.25 million, Ticketmaster shall make charitable contributions in amounts equaling the difference between $11.25 million and the aggregate value of the redeemed credit benefits that year. The aggregate guaranteed minimum redemption/cy pres amount for the settlement is $45 million. The charitable payments shall be made in the form of a combination of cash and tickets provided free of charge to appropriate charities, on the terms set forth in detail in the Settlement Agreement.
B. Non-Economic Settlement Terms And Benefits To Class Members.
1. Administrative Fees. Ticketmaster will pay the fees and costs charged by the Claims Administrator for administering the Settlement.
2. Website Changes. Ticketmaster has agreed to change its Website to add disclosures clarifying that Ticketmaster's OPF may include a profit and is not limited to its order processing costs, and that its Delivery Price for expedited delivery via UPS may include a profit to Ticketmaster and is not the same as what UPS charges Ticketmaster. The language of the changes to the Website has been left to Ticketmaster's reasonable discretion and may be changed again by Ticketmaster in the future to suit its business needs.
C. Release of Claims. The complete release is contained in the Settlement Agreement. In summary, if the Court grants final approval of the Settlement, you will be deemed to have fully and finally released and discharged Defendant Ticketmaster and its related entities from any and all claims relating in any manner to the allegations made in connection with the claims alleged by Plaintiffs in this case. If you want more details about the scope of the release, you should read the Settlement Agreement which is posted on the Litigation Website.
The release also covers any and all claims for attorneys' fees, costs or disbursements incurred by Lead Class Counsel or any other attorneys for services rendered or value provided to the Class or the UPS Subclass. Nothing in the release precludes any action to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Insofar as this release extends to venues, the Released Claims shall not extend to any claims relating to the Face Value of Tickets (as defined in the Settlement Agreement). The Release also does not extend to any claims based on a breach of this Agreement.
D. Attorneys' Fees and Costs. You will not be required to pay any attorneys' fees or costs from your share of the Settlement. Lead Class Counsel will file with the Court an application (the "Fee Motion") in this action for an award of up to fifteen million US dollars ($15,000,000) in attorneys' fees, which, if awarded by the Court, would represent a "multiplier" of approximately 2.5 times Lead Class Counsel's "lodestar." The lodestar is computed by taking the amount of time spent working on this case, multiplied by Lead Class Counsel's hourly rates. Lead Class Counsel has informed the Court that its lodestar is approximately $6.5 million, from the beginning of this case in 2003 through September 26, 2011. Lead Class Counsel will also seek to recover the amount of costs and expenses they have incurred, up to a cap of one million five hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000). The parties have agreed that any award of fees and costs shall not exceed those amounts and that Ticketmaster will pay any amounts, up to these limits, awarded by the Court in addition to the relief provided to the Class.
E. Incentive Payment To Named Plaintiffs. In connection with the Final Approval hearing, Plaintiffs' counsel will ask the Court to award an incentive award not to exceed $20,000 each for the two named Plaintiffs who brought this case, were certified as class representatives, and who have been required to respond to substantial discovery requests from Ticketmaster over the past eight years. If the Court approves the request, any attorneys' fees awarded by the Court will be reduced by the amount of the incentive award. The incentive award will not reduce any of the benefits to the Class members.
ADMINISTRATOR CONTACT INFORMATION: The Claims Administrator in this matter is The Garden City Group, Inc. You may reach the Claims Administrator by e-mail, fax, mail or telephone using the following contact information:
Mail:
Schlesinger v. Ticketmaster
c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
P.O. Box 9731
Dublin, OH 43017-5631
Toll-free telephone number: (877) 317-9139
PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEYS AND PLAINTIFFS SUPPORT SETTLEMENT: Plaintiffs' attorneys and Plaintiffs support this Settlement. Among the reasons for their support include the benefits provided to the class, the fairness of the Settlement terms, the inherent risk of litigation at trial and/or appeal, and the delays associated with continued litigation, including a trial and appeals, the uncertainty of Plaintiffs' claims, as well as other legal issues that have not yet been determined by the Court. Class Counsel believes that the Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate in light of all the circumstances and in the best interests of the Class.
HOW TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
The Claims Administrator has set up a website at the URL <www.ticketfeelitigation.com> for the purposes of allowing class members to update their email information, and to provide them additional information regarding the lawsuit. The Litigation Website includes copies in downloadable .pdf format of this notice, the Settlement Agreement, the most recent version of the Complaint in this case, the Motion for Preliminary Approval of this Settlement filed by Plaintiffs' attorneys, and the Court Order granting Preliminary Approval. The Litigation Website also provides a means for class members to make inquiries electronically to the Claims Administrator regarding this Settlement and other important information relating to the Settlement.
Additionally, any class member is free to inspect the Court file, which is located at 111 North Hill St., Los Angeles, California 90012.

FINAL APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT: The Court has set a hearing regarding final approval of the Settlement, Incentive Award Motion and Fee Application for May 29, 2012 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 64 of the Los Angeles Superior Court, located at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, California 90012. The Final Approval Motion, Incentive Award Motion and Fee Application will be filed with the Court no later than April 2, 2012. All pleadings, motions and applications are or will be publically available in the court file in advance of the final approval hearing. If you file a timely objection as and when set forth below, you may (but are not required to) supplement your objection by timely filing a written opposition to any specific motion or application that has been filed with the court, in accordance with the California Code of Civil Procedure. Any supplemental oppositions must be served on Plaintiffs' counsel and Ticketmaster's counsel by personal or overnight delivery at the addresses below no later than April 16, 2012. The Settlement will not be final and will not take effect unless and until 5 days after Final Approval of this Settlement as "Final Approval" is defined in footnote 2 below and in the Settlement Agreement.
At the fairness hearing, Lead Class Counsel will ask the Court, Hon. Kenneth R. Freeman, to find that all aspects of the Settlement Agreement are fair, reasonable and adequate and approve the settlement in its entirety, which includes entering a Judgment granting all of the relief to the class members identified above, and the attorneys' fees, expenses, and incentive awards. 
Any class member who files a timely objection may appear at the fairness hearing (either in person or by an attorney) and have his or her objections heard by the Court.
RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT:
You have the right to object to any aspect of the proposed Settlement, including the relief provided to the Class members and/or the attorneys' fees and expenses, and/or the incentive awards, and may appear personally or through counsel at the hearing and object to the approval of the Settlement. Even if you object to the Settlement, you may still be entitled to share in the Settlement proceeds. The following is a summary of the requirements for filing an objection. For complete details, please review the Settlement Agreement, available at www.ticketfeelitigation.com.
To be valid and considered by the Court, any objections by you must be submitted in writing, must be filed with the Court and served by mail and/or email on Defendants' Counsel and Lead Class Counsel by February 16, 2012 and must and include the following information: (1) a heading referring to the Action; (2) your name, address, telephone number, email address, and the contact information for any attorney retained by you in connection with the objection; (3) any email addresses used by you in connection with the purchase of tickets from the Website during the Class Period and, to the best of your ability, the identification (description, date and location of the event, date of ticket purchase, number of tickets purchased, and whether or not the tickets were delivered by UPS) of all purchases you made from the Website during the Class Period; (4) a detailed statement of each objection you are making and the factual and legal basis for each objection, and the relief that you are requesting; (5) a statement of whether you intend to appear, either in person or through counsel, at the Final Approval Hearing. If you intend to appear through counsel, you must identify the counsel's name, address, phone number, email address, and the state bar(s) to which the counsel is admitted, and any Points and Authorities in support of your objections must contain any and all legal authority upon which you will rely; (6) a list of and copies of all exhibits which you may seek to use at the Final Approval Hearing; and (7) if you are going to request the Court allow you to call witnesses at the Final Approval Hearing, you must provide a list of any such witnesses together with a brief summary of each witness' expected testimony at least thirty (30) days prior to the Final Approval Hearing. The failure to provide this list of witnesses shall bar them from testifying at the hearing. However, submitting this list does not guarantee that the witnesses shall be allowed to testify. The ability of any witness to testify is subject to any objections that may be raised by any Party and subject to the normal rules and discretion of the Court.
Any counsel retained by you in connection with an objection shall identify all objections they have filed to class action settlements from January 1, 2008 to present, and identify the results of each objection, including any Court opinions ruling on the objections. Objector's counsel shall also identify if they have ever been sanctioned by a Court in connection with filing an objection.
If you file an objection, you must make yourself available for deposition upon ten days written notice. The deposition must be taken within 40 miles of your residence, unless you agree to a different location.
WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU DO NOTHING AND DO NOT EXERCISE YOUR RIGHT TO OPT OUT OF THE SETTLEMENT:
If the Court grants final approval of the Settlement, and if you do not properly and timely opt out of the Class by sending a written request to opt-out to the Claims Administrator identified above either by mail postmarked on or before February 16, 2012 or by e-mail sent by no later than 5 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time on February 16, 2012, then you will automatically be included in the Class and the Subclass, as applicable. You will be bound by the terms of the Settlement Agreement and any Court Order approving the Settlement and Judgment, and will release your claims against Ticketmaster.
An original and one copy of any objections you prepare shall be timely filed with the Court at the following address: Los Angeles Superior Court, Department 64, 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, California 90012. Copies of all documents filed with the Clerk of the Court must also be sent to Plaintiffs' counsel and to Ticketmaster's counsel at the following addresses:

Plaintiffs' Counsel / Lead Class Counsel
Steven P. Blonder, Esq.
Much Shelist Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C.
191 North Wacker Drive
Suite 1800
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Telephone: (312) 521-2000
Facsimile: (312) 521-2100
Email: sblonder@muchshelist.com
W. Michael Hensley, Esq.
Robert J. Stein III, Esq.
AlvaradoSmith
1 MacArthur Place, Suite 200
Santa Ana, California 92707
Telephone: (714) 852-6800
Facsimile: (714) 852-6899
Email: rstein@alvaradosmith.commhensley@alvaradosmith.com
Ticketmaster's Counsel
Jeff E. Scott, Esq.
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
2450 Colorado Avenue, Suite 400E
Santa Monica, California 90404
Tel: (310) 586-7700
Fax: (310) 586-7800
Email: ScottJ@gtlaw.com

Any objection or opt-out request that fails to satisfy the requirements of the Settlement Agreement, or that is not properly and timely submitted, shall be deemed ineffective, may be disregarded by the Court, and may be deemed to have been waived, and the Class Member asserting such objection or opt-out request shall be bound by the final Judgment of the Court.
IF YOU DO NOT OPPOSE ANY ASPECT OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, YOU NEED NOT APPEAR AT THE HEARING OR FILE ANY PAPERS.
RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES. If there is a dispute regarding your settlement amount, or any other aspect of your participation in the Settlement (other than objections as set forth above), the dispute shall be decided by the Honorable John Wagner (Ret.).
INQUIRIES: Any questions concerning this notice should be directed by email to ticketfeelitigation@gcginc.com, or by U.S. mail or telephone to the Claims Administrator using the contact information set forth above.
Please do not contact the Court or Defendant's attorneys.

1You are not entitled to any benefits under this Settlement if you have been convicted of felonies pertaining to the purchase of tickets over Ticketmaster's Website or have used "bots" or other software to disguise your true identity and/or avoid the "tickets per transaction" limits on the Website. You will be required to certify that you are not so disqualified at the point of purchase.

2"Final Approval" shall be five (5) days after the date that an Order by the Court granting final approval of this settlement becomes non-appealable. "Non-appealable" shall mean that no party, including objectors, if any, has a right to appeal to, or seek reconsideration in, the California Court of Appeal, the California Supreme Court, or the U.S. Supreme Court or, to the extent any appeals have been filed, they have been resolved or exhausted.

The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, has ordered this email notice be sent. If you wish to UNSUBSCRIBE from future email messages from the Claims Administrator with regard to this Settlement, please click on this link.

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Hoodia Weight Loss Settlement with FTC

As part of its ongoing efforts to stop bogus health claims, the Federal Trade Commission settled charges brought against three people and two companies for deceptively advertising a supposed weight-loss supplement ingredient. One defendant is banned from making any weight-loss claims related to foods, drugs, or dietary supplements and must turn over a vacation home and other assets to the FTC; another is banned from the dietary supplement business; and all defendants are barred from making any more deceptive claims. The marketers were part of a scheme that supplied manufacturers of weight-loss supplements with a substance they claimed was a derivative of the plant Hoodia gordonii (“hoodia”), which is native to southern Africa. Under the settlements: David J. Romeo, and two companies he controlled, Nutraceuticals International LLC and Stella Labs LLC, are banned from making any weight-loss claims while marketing foods, drugs, and dietary supplements. The settlement imposes a $22.5 million judgment against Romeo and the two companies, which will be suspended when Romeo forfeits his vacation home in Vermont, and assigns to the FTC the right to collect on $635,000 in business loans owed to him. If it is later determined that the financial information Romeo gave the FTC was false, the full amount of the judgment will become due. Nutraceuticals International principal Craig Payton is banned from marketing any foods, drugs, or dietary supplements. The order against Payton does not require him to forfeit any assets, as they were already seized in an unrelated federal drug case. Nutraceuticals International marketing executive Deborah B. Vickery is required to pay a $4 million judgment, which has been suspended due to her inability to pay. If it is later determined that the financial information she gave the FTC was false, the full amount of the judgment will become due. All five defendants are prohibited from making any false or unsupported claims about foods, drugs, or dietary supplements, and from helping others to make these claims. They also are barred from misrepresenting the results of any scientific study. In its 2009 complaint, the FTC alleged that the defendants made false and deceptive claims about hoodia and its effectiveness as a treatment for obesity, and falsely claimed that their ingredient was hoodia when it was not. The complaint also alleged that the defendants falsely and deceptively claimed their product would enable consumers to lose weight and suppress appetites; was scientifically proven to suppress appetite, resulting in weight loss; and was clinically proven to reduce caloric intake by 1,000 to 2,000 calories per day. The defendants also provided deceptive advertising and promotional materials to trade customers, who then had the means to deceive consumers that bought the purported weight-loss products. The FTC dropped its charge against a fourth individual, Zoltan Klivinyi, who served as an officer of Nutraceuticals International, but is no longer residing in the United States. The FTC has more information on this topic for consumers. See Weighing the Evidence in Diet Ads. The Commission votes authorizing the staff to file the stipulated orders were 5-0. The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey entered the orders against Craig Payton and Deborah B. Vickery on August 2, 2010. The court entered the order against David J. Romeo, Nutraceuticals International LLC, and Stella Labs LLC on October 27, 2011. NOTE: A consent decrees is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the defendant that the law has been violated. Consent decrees have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.

SkideKids Settlement With FTC

The operator of www.skidekids.com, a website that advertises itself as the “Facebook and Myspace for Kids,” has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that he collected personally information from approximately 5,600 children without obtaining prior parental consent, in violation of the Commission’s Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”) Rule. The FTC’s complaint also charges the operator, Jones O. Godwin, with making deceptive claims in Skid-e-kids’ privacy policy about the site’s information collection practices. The proposed settlement will bar future violations of COPPA and misrepresentations about the collection, use and disclosure of children’s information. The FTC’s COPPA Rule requires that website operators notify parents and obtain their consent before they collect, use or disclose personal information from children under 13. The Rule also requires that website operators post a privacy policy that is clear, understandable and complete. According to the FTC, Skid-e-kids is a social networking site targeted at children ages 7-14 that allows them to register, create and update profile information, create public posts, upload pictures and videos, and “friend” and send messages to other Skid-e-kids members. The FTC alleges that the Skid-e-kids’ online privacy policy claimed that the site “requires child users to provide a parent’s valid email address in order to register on the website. We use this information to send the parent a message that can be used to activate the Skid-e-kids account, to notify the parent about our privacy practices, to send the parent communications either about the parent’s and child’s Skid-e-kids accounts or about features of our Web site . . .” The complaint alleges that the defendant registered children on the website without collecting a parent’s email address or obtaining permission for their children to participate. Children who registered were able to provide personal information, including their date of birth, email address, first and last name, and city. In addition to violating the COPPA Rule by collecting kids’ personal information without parental permission, the FTC alleged that the Skid-e-kids’ false privacy policy claims violated the FTC Act. In addition to barring future violations of COPPA and misrepresentations about the collection and use of children’s information, the settlement order also requires Godwin to destroy information he collected from children in violation of the Rule, and, for a period of time, link to online educational material and retain an online privacy professional or join a Commission-approved safe harbor program to oversee any COPPA-covered website he may run. Finally, the proposed order imposes a $100,000 civil penalty, all but $1,000 of which will be suspended if Godwin provided truthful information about his financial condition and complies with the order’s oversight provision. The FTC has a new publication, Living Life Online, to help tweens and teens navigate the Net safely. The Commission vote to authorize the staff to refer the complaint to the Department of Justice was 5-0. The vote to approve the proposed consent decree, was 4-1, with Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch dissenting. The DOJ filed the complaint and proposed consent decree on behalf of the Commission in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on November 8, 2011. The proposed consent decree is subject to court approval. NOTE: The Commission authorizes the filing of a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law. This consent decree is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Consent decrees have the force of law when signed by the District Court judge. The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC's online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC's website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.


Friday, November 11, 2011

MagSafe Power Adapter Settlement

If you are the original owner of certain MacBook or MacBook Pro computers and/or you purchased a standalone 60W or 85W MagSafe power adapter for these computers, you could be entitled to benefits under a class action settlement The settlement will provide a cash payment if you are the original owner (by purchase or gift) of certain Apple MacBook or MacBook Pro computer models (“Subject Computer”) or separately purchased an Apple 60W or 85W MagSafe “T” Power Adapter (“Adapter”), your Adapter showed signs of Strain Relief Damage, and you purchased an Adapter as a replacement (“Replacement Adapter”) within three years of purchasing the Subject Computer or Adapter. You may also be able to obtain a replacement adapter at no charge from Apple if your Adapter shows signs of Strain Relief Damage now or in the future. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California authorized this notice. The Court will have a hearing to consider whether to approve the settlement, so that the benefits may be paid. WHO’S AFFECTED? You’re a “Class Member” if you are a United States resident who purchased in the United States an Apple MacBook or MacBook Pro computer or an Apple 60W or 85W MagSafe MPM-1 (“T”) Power Adapter. WHAT’S THIS ABOUT? The lawsuit claimed that the MagSafe “T” Adapter is defective in that it allegedly “dangerously frays, sparks and prematurely fails to work,” and that Apple engaged in misrepresentations regarding the Adapter. Apple denies all allegations and has asserted many defenses. Apple is entering into this settlement to avoid burdensome and costly litigation. The settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing. WHAT CAN YOU GET FROM THE SETTLEMENT? Apple has agreed to provide a cash payment to Class Members who purchased a Replacement Adapter for a Subject Computer or Adapter covered by the settlement and who send in a valid claim form. The settlement provides for different cash payments depending on when you purchased a Replacement Adapter. YEAR REPLACEMENT ADAPTER PURCHASED CASH PAYMENT AMOUNT YEAR 1 THE ACTUAL AMOUNT PAID FOR THE REPLACEMENT ADAPTER (EXCLUDING TAX & SHIPPING) UP TO $79 YEAR 2 $50 YEAR 3 $35 There is a limit of three refunds per Subject Computer. You may also be able to obtain a replacement adapter at no charge from Apple if your Adapter shows signs of Strain Relief Damage now or in the future. HOW DO YOU GET A PAYMENT? A detailed notice and claim form package contains everything you need. Just call 1-888-332-0277 or go to www.AdapterSettlement.com to get one. HOW DO YOU GET A REPLACEMENT ADAPTER? If your Adapter shows signs of Strain Relief Damage now or in the future, you may claim a replacement under Apple’s Adapter Replacement Program by taking your Adapter and computer to an Apple Retail Store or Apple Authorized Service Provider or contacting AppleCare. Strain Relief Damage means fraying, melting, straining, sparking, weakening, discoloration, bubbling, overheating and/or separation of the Adapter’s strain reliefs. IMPORTANT DEADLINES To claim a cash payment, you must mail the claim form postmarked on or before March 21, 2012. To obtain a Replacement Adapter, you must contact Apple within three years from the date you purchased a Subject Computer or standalone Adapter, or May 21, 2012, whichever is later; no claim form is required. If you do not claim a cash payment or Replacement Adapter within these time periods, you will lose your right to obtain these benefits. WHAT ARE YOUR OPTIONS? If you don’t want to make a claim and you don’t want to be legally bound by the settlement, you must postmark your request to exclude yourself by January 6, 2012, or you won’t be able to sue, or continue to sue, Apple about the legal claims in this case. If you exclude yourself, you will not be eligible to receive a payment from this settlement. If you stay in the Class, you may object to the settlement. Objections must be received by January 6, 2012. The detailed notice describes how to exclude yourself or object. The Court will hold a hearing in this case (In re MagSafe Power Adapter Litigation, Case No. C09-01911-JW) on February 27, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. to consider whether to approve (1) the settlement and (2) attorneys’ fees and expenses of up to $3.1 million and service payments to Plaintiffs of $5,000 each (not to exceed $30,000). You may appear at the hearing, but you don’t have to. To obtain a full notice and claim form, go to www.AdapterSettlement.com or call toll free 1-888-332-0277. For more details, go to www.AdapterSettlement.com or contact Helen Zeldes, Esq., Zeldes & Haeggquist, LLP, 625 Broadway, Suite 906, San Diego, CA 92101, 619-342-8000 or contact Steven A. Skalet, Esq., Mehri & Skalet, PLLC, 1250 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20036, 202-822-5100.

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Reebok Class Action

Settlement Order Prohibits Reebok from Making Unsupported Claims that ‘Toning Shoes’ Strengthen, Tone Muscles In its ongoing effort to stem overhyped advertising claims, the Federal Trade Commission announced that Reebok International Ltd. has agreed to resolve charges that the company deceptively advertised “toning shoes,” which it claimed would provide extra tone and strength to leg and buttock muscles. Reebok will pay $25 million as part of the settlement agreement. The funds will be made available for consumer refunds either directly from the FTC or through a court-approved class action lawsuit. Consumers who bought Reebok toning shoes or toning apparel can submit a claim here.

“The FTC wants national advertisers to understand that they must exercise some responsibility and ensure that their claims for fitness gear are supported by sound science,” said David Vladeck, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.

Consumers should carefully evaluate advertising claims for work-out gear and exercise equipment. For more information see: How's that Work-out Working Out? Tips on Buying Fitness Gear.

Reebok’s EasyTone walking shoes and RunTone running shoes have retailed for $80 to $100 a pair, while EasyTone flip flops have retailed for about $60 a pair. Ads for the shoes claimed that sole technology featuring pockets of moving air creates “micro instability” that tones and strengthens muscles as you walk or run.

According to the FTC complaint, Reebok made unsupported claims in advertisements that walking in its EasyTone shoes and running in its RunTone running shoes strengthen and tone key leg and buttock (gluteus maximus) muscles more than regular shoes. The FTC’s complaint also alleges that Reebok falsely claimed that walking in EasyTone footwear had been proven to lead to 28 percent more strength and tone in the buttock muscles, 11 percent more strength and tone in the hamstring muscles, and 11 percent more strength and tone in the calf muscles than regular walking shoes.

Beginning in early 2009, Reebok made its claims through print, television, and Internet advertisements, the FTC alleged. The claims also appeared on shoe boxes and displays in retail stores. One television ad featured a very fit woman explaining to an audience the benefits of Reebok EasyTone toning shoes. She picks up a shoe from a display and points to a chart showing the muscles that benefit from use of the shoes, while a video camera continues to focus on her buttocks. She says the shoes are proven to strengthen hamstrings and calves by up to 11 percent, and that they tone the buttocks “up to 28 percent more than regular sneakers, just by walking.”

Under the settlement, Reebok is barred from:

making claims that toning shoes and other toning apparel are effective in strengthening muscles, or that using the footwear will result in a specific percentage or amount of muscle toning or strengthening, unless the claims are true and backed by scientific evidence; making any health or fitness-related efficacy claims for toning shoes and other toning apparel unless the claims are true and backed by scientific evidence; and misrepresenting any tests, studies, or research results regarding toning shoes and other toning apparel. Ftc.gov/reebok gives consumers the basic facts about the Reebok settlement and directs them to apply for a refund if they are eligible. The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint and approving the proposed consent decree was 5-0. The FTC filed the complaint and proposed consent decree in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on September 28, 2011. The proposed consent decree is subject to court approval.


Monday, February 7, 2011

Yelp Lawsuit Charges Extortion and Fake Reviews


More businesses are joining in a federal class action lawsuit against Yelp. They are accusing Yelp.com of extortion and fraudulent business practices.
The law firms involved are Weston Firm San Diego, California; Beck and Lee Miami, Florida. 
“Yelp’s practices are extortionate and especially harmful to small businesses, such as our clients, who are particularly vulnerable to reviews posted on the site,” said Jared H. Beck, co-managing partner of Beck & Lee, referring to the original plaintiff and the nine new ones.
Nine local businesses have joined a lawsuit accusing local business review website, Yelp  of extortion and fraudulent business practices.
Yelp denied the charges and stated that they reviewed the amended complaint and still believes the suit is without merit. “The allegations stem from confusion over how our review filter works to protect consumers from fake, or shill, reviews and businesses from malicious reviews from competitors,” said Vince Sollitto, Yelp’s vice president of communications.
After the original lawsuit, Yelp chief executive Jeremy Stoppelman responded on the company’s official blog: “There has been a long history of people accusing Yelp of monkeying around with reviews in exchange for money. The allegations are disappointing, not only because they are false, but because they ignore empirical evidence in favor of conspiracy theories.”