Articles Posted in Class-Action

Published on:

Despite the fact that judges are the ones who set bail, one Cook County court judge, Judge Celia Gamrath, says it is up to lawmakers, rather than judges, to determine how judges are allowed to set bail.

The issue in question is the fact that Cook County judges have been using a cash bail system. The intention behind such a system is to give defendants a reason to appear in court, but a recent class-action lawsuit alleges it has also had the effect of discriminating against minorities and the poor, who are often unable to come up with the cash necessary to pay their own bail.

The lawsuit was filed against five Cook County court judges on behalf of two detainees who sat in jail for almost a year because they couldn’t afford to post their own bail. They both eventually pled guilty to the charges against them.

Alexa Van Brunt, one of the attorneys who filed the lawsuit against the judges, said they plan to appeal Judge Gamrath’s decision, claiming they hadn’t even had a chance to fully explain their arguments regarding the allegedly unconstitutional nature of the current cash bail system before Judge Gamrath dismissed them.

Van Brunt noted that the lawsuit might feel political to Gamrath because the class action is asking her to make a ruling about other Circuit Court judges. In fact, that’s not what they’re trying to do at all – instead, they are just asking the judge to help make sure the courts follow the law. But Van Brunt claimed the judge chose to get the lawsuit off her desk rather than face the consequences of ruling on a potentially sticky situation. Continue reading

Published on:

We all know the basic concept of supply and demand. When supply is low and demand is high, prices tend to go up. When this happens with houses, realtors refer to it as a “seller’s market,” but what if it’s really a “realtor’s market?”

That allegation is at the heart of a recently proposed class action lawsuit against Houlihan Lawrence, a large brokerage firm with 30 offices spread throughout the northern New York suburbs and Fairfield County, Connecticut.

The lawsuit was filed by Pamela Goldstein, an associate general counsel for a communications company who fell in love with a four-bedroom, white, colonial house located in White Plains, New York. The agent who showed her the house, Daniel Cezimbra, allegedly told her there were other offers on the house and that she had better act fast and bid above the $599,000 asking price.

Goldstein took his advice, and eventually bought the house for $637,000, but then she discovered something that made her question that interaction – and her agent’s motives.

It turns out that Houlihan Lawrence was also representing the person selling the house. This meant that, when Cezimbra was supposed to be negotiating on Goldstein’s behalf and representing her interests in the bidding war, he was going up against his boss – who also happens to be his brother-in-law. No matter how hard people work to be fair and unbiased, it has to be hard to do your best negotiating when the person across the table from you has the power to fire you. Continue reading

Published on:

With the fast-paced, highly competitive nature of technology today, companies are sometimes so eager to get a new product out on the shelves before their competitor that they don’t always take the time to work out all the kinks before the big reveal. Such was allegedly the case when Apple introduced their new butterfly keyboard in 2015.

The keyboard looks much like any other keyboard on the surface, but underneath the keys is a new butterfly mechanism, which Apple claimed would make for a more responsive and comfortable keystroke than the previously standard scissors design. The new design also takes up less space, so Apple could either make room for other things or just make a sleeker laptop. At the same time, Apple claimed the new design would be exponentially more stable than previous designs.

Despite that assertion, consumer complaints about the new keyboard started popping up almost as soon as it hit the shelves. Customers have regularly complained about keys getting stuck and becoming unusable, while others claim they hear high-pitched sounds when pressing keys on their new and not-so-improved keyboard.

Problems with the butterfly keyboard are so common that more than 20,000 consumers have signed a petition on Change.org calling on Apple to replace the allegedly defective keyboard.

If the petition is unsuccessful, the consumer class action lawsuit that was recently filed against Apple might have more luck getting the tech giant reimburse its customers.

The consumer lawsuit was filed in the Northern District Court of California and is seeking to represent thousands of consumers who have allegedly suffered as a result of the new keyboard’s alleged design flaws. The class-action lawsuit was filed by two lead plaintiffs, Zixuan Rao and Kyle Barbara.

Rao bought a 15-inch MacBook Pro with a butterfly keyboard in early 2018, but one of the keys soon started to malfunction. When he took it to an Apple store, representatives were allegedly unable to fix the problem but offered to ship the computer to their Repair Center. Rao decided against that course of action since it would have meant going a week without his computer.

Barbaro bought a 2016 MacBook Pro, only to have his caps lock key and space bar stopped working. Apple was able to fix it, but the space bar again stopped working, by which time, Barbaro’s computer was out of warranty and Apple told him that he would have to pay $700 for them to fix the key. Continue reading

Published on:

 

It’s common for early versions of a new technology to suffer from some kinks that still need to be worked out, but usually, developers find remedies for those problems in later versions of the technology. Unfortunately, Apple allegedly failed to find a fix for their defective Apple Watch screen, according to a recent consumer class action lawsuit.

The lawsuit, which was filed in California, is seeking $5 million in damages – enough to take the case to the federal level if a judge agrees to certify the class and the parties agree that federal court is the best venue for arguing the case.

The lawsuit alleges Apple Watch screens are prone to shattering, cracking, and popping out through no fault of the wearer. According to the complaint, Apple knew about this problem when it started selling its smartwatches (and possibly even earlier), but failed to do anything about it. The problem allegedly started with the very first Apple Watches the tech giant ever sold and has continued through Series 3, which is the latest version to be sold by the company.

Although Apple forums are full of complaints about the Apple Watch screens, Apple refuses to publicly admit the devices have a problem. The only step the company has made toward remedying the situation is to offer extended warranty plans for certain versions of the Apple Watch for screens that had popped out as a result of a battery swelling issue. Apple announced in spring of 2017 that it would begin offering these extended warranty plans. Continue reading

Published on:

Employers have increasingly been including arbitration agreements in their contracts with their workers. These clauses require the worker to give up any right to sue their employer in court, instead of requiring them to pursue all legal disputes in arbitration, where employers have significant advantages over their workers.

Because arbitration was initially designed as a way to resolve disputes between businesses, it was not set up to handle classes of plaintiffs, and as a result, most people tend to interpret arbitration clauses as automatically banning class arbitration.

But a new data breach lawsuit filed against Lamps Plus alleges employees should be able to file class arbitrations, as long as the arbitration agreement does not specifically ban class arbitration.

The case involves a class of workers who are attempting to sue Lamps Plus for allegedly failing to properly secure their IRS information, which was stolen in a data breach. The case went before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, wherein the company tried to have the case moved to arbitration, but the plaintiffs claimed the arbitration agreement was invalid and asked to be certified as a class. The court partially ruled in favor of Lamps Plus by agreeing to enforce the arbitration agreement, but it also ruled that the case could go forward as a class arbitration.

The decision was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which agreed with the lower court to enforce the arbitration agreement, but on a class basis. That decision was further appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has agreed to consider the case. Continue reading

Published on:

One of the biggest advantages to settling a lawsuit outside of court is that it removes the uncertainty of going to trial. The plaintiffs are sure to get some financial benefit, rather than risking it all at trial, and the defendants often pay a lower amount than they would have had to pay if they had left it up to a jury. Both parties get to avoid the time, expense, and hassle involved in pursuing a legal dispute that has the potential to drag on in the courts for months or even years. This is why most class action lawsuits settle before ever reaching court.

But if the parties reach a settlement agreement and one or more of the plaintiffs don’t agree with the terms of the agreement, they can choose to opt out of the class. Plaintiffs who decide not to opt out, and take the settlement, are usually prevented from filing similar lawsuits against the defendant in the future as part of the settlement agreement. It’s for this reason that, when someone decides to opt out of a class, it’s often because they want to reserve their right to sue the defendant. In most cases, they think they can get better terms, either by pursuing a lawsuit all the way through a trial or pushing for a more favorable settlement agreement.

This is the case with the recent class action copyright lawsuit against Spotify. The music streaming company recently reached a settlement agreement worth $112.55 million with a class of more than 535,000 plaintiffs. After the class members were notified of the settlement and its terms, about 1,200 members opted out of the class. Continue reading

Published on:

While online tools can be a great way for consumers to gain information on products before they buy, they can be a hassle for sellers. Brick-and-mortar retailers have long complained about shoppers coming in to look over their merchandise before buying it for a lower price online. There have also been multiple scandals involving books and other goods that go on sale at one retailer, and because of Amazon’s automatic price check, they go on sale for that same price on Amazon. This can then cause a domino effect of other retailers selling the product for the lower price, which some people claim devalues the items being sold.

But what about houses?

Selling a house is problematic enough on its own, but now homeowners looking to sell have to deal with buyers who use Zillow’s online tool, Zestimate, to get an estimate of the price of their house. Zestimate takes the information on a house and uses a proprietary algorithm to calculate an estimated home price. Of course, Zestimate only has access to information on the house that’s publicly available, whereas an appraiser would have access to much more information on a property, making their appraisal different from Zillow’s online estimate.

Nevertheless, buyers come in expecting to pay the amount they saw on Zillow, even though the site warns consumers that the number is only an estimate and homes might very well sell for more or less than the amount provided by their online tool. It is not an appraisal and most of its estimates have a 4.6% error rate, meaning the price it gives could be 4.6% more or less than the actual price of the property. Zillow says the estimate is meant as a starting point, not a final number. Continue reading

Published on:

After three dismissals, a class-action consumer lawsuit filed against Barnes & Noble over a 2012 data breach has been sent back to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

In September of 2012, Barnes & Noble became aware that their credit card scanners had been compromised by “skimmers” which would collect the data from the credit cards that were swiped and transfer them to a third party, which would then sell the information online. Barnes & Noble waited a month before alerting their customers to the data breach, so in addition to allegations that Barnes & Noble failed to properly protect its customers’ data, the class action lawsuit further alleged the bookstore had violated the California Security Breach Notification Act.

Nevertheless, the district court dismissed the case three times. The class of plaintiffs appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the decision to dismiss it and sent the case back to the district court.

One plaintiff’s accounts were frozen for three days, meaning she had no access to her own funds in that time period. Another plaintiff had their credit card inactivated for a week, thereby denying them the use of that card. Yet another plaintiff reinstated credit monitoring on their card, which is an additional charge of $17.99 per month. Still another plaintiff was unable to receive the value of their Barnes & Noble’s bargain. Continue reading

Published on:

You know how when you post a photo on Facebook of yourself with some friends and Facebook automatically prompts you to tag those people? And it doesn’t just prompt you to tag “your friends” it prompts you with their names because Facebook already knows what you and everyone else on Facebook look like.

While the immediate result is simply a matter of convenience, it’s also kind of scary to know that Facebook is using facial recognition software to identify you. That means that even if your friends don’t tag you in all their photos, Facebook still knows where you were and with whom.

Nimesh Patel was so upset by this idea that he sued Facebook, on behalf of himself and a class of other Facebook users, for allegedly violating their privacy. Although Patel lives in Illinois and the complaint alleges Facebook violated the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act (IBPA), the case has been moved to the federal court for the Northern District of San Francisco. The federal judge hearing the case has recently decided to certify the class, which means it will now be allowed to move forward through the courts.

In agreeing to certify the class, Judge James Donato also defined the parameters of the case, which consists of two main parts: 1) whether Facebook collected this biometric data on consumers under the IBPA; and 2) whether consumers were notified about the biometric data and its uses and had given their consent. Continue reading

Published on:

Extra virgin olive oil (EVOO) is the highest grade of olive oil and people are often willing to pay a higher price for bottles claiming to be filled with EVOO. By definition, EVOO has been made by cold-pressing olives, without using any sulfates or other chemicals in the extraction process. It’s also supposed to have a superior taste compared to all the other forms of olive oil, although the average consumer is unlikely to be able to tell the difference. Unfortunately, there are plenty of olive oil manufacturers who rely on that ignorance.

Although we all do it, there are a few problems with buying a bottle just because it’s labeled “extra virgin olive oil.” The first is that bottles bearing that label are all too easy to obtain here in the U.S., despite the fact that real EVOO is the best of the best, and yet a glance at American grocery store shelves would have you believe that virtually every olive oil sold here is EVOO.

The truth is that EVOO is one of the largest (and oldest) scams in the world. Tests conducted by the University of California-Davis to the National Consumers League have found that more than half the olive oil labeled EVOO in the U.S. is actually adulterated with other oils, such as sunflower seed and peanut oils. Not only do these oils lack taste, they also lack the renowned health benefits of EVOO and can even cause allergic reactions in some consumers. Continue reading