Articles Posted in Class-Action

|

Many people these days take for granted that nothing we do on the internet is private. However, most of us still expect our personal computers and smartphones to remain free from internet stalkers. A recent lawsuit against comScore however, has revealed that this is not always the case.

ComScore is a publicly traded company based in Reston, Virginia that collects internet user data. It monitors and measures what people do on the internet and turns that information into actionable data for its clients, which includes some of the largest e-commerce sites, online retailers, advertising agencies, and publishers. The company says that its more than 2,000 clients use the data for online marketing and targeted advertising.

ComScore uses the OSSProxy software. It is typically bundled with free software products such as screen savers and music sharing software and gets downloaded to the systems of end users that install them. It constantly collects and sends a wide range of data to comScore servers, including the names of every file on the computer, information entered into a web browser, and the contents of PDF files, among other things. ComScore insists that all of its data is stripped of all identifying information and personal data before it gets sold to clients.

However, a lawsuit filed in 2011 by two internet users, one from Illinois and the other from California, alleges that comScore violated the federal Stored Communication Act (SCA), the Electronic Privacy Communication Act (EPCA), and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). The lawsuit alleges that comScore changed security settings and opened back doors on end-user systems, stole information from word processing documents, emails, and PDFs, redirected user traffic, and injected data collection code into browsers and instant messaging applications.

The lawsuit also alleges that the company secretly tracked and sold Social Security numbers, credit card numbers and passwords, along with other personal information.
In order to collect this data, comScore’s software allegedly modifies computer firewall settings, redirects internet traffic, and can be upgraded and modified remotely. The lawsuit also alleges that, contrary to comScore’s assertions, the company does not separate the personal information from the data it sells. The suit also alleges that comScore intercepts data that it has no business accessing.

Recently, District Judge James Holderman of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted the two plaintiffs class action status. Any individual who downloaded and installed comScore’s tracking software on their systems after 2005 now has a claim against the company. The judge also certified a subclass, consisting of members of the primary class who downloaded comScore’s software during a specific time frame but were never provided a functional hyperlink to the user agreement, which describes how the software works.
Under the SCA and ECPA, each class member would be entitled to a maximum of $1,000 in statutory damages.

The judge denied certification of a third claim against comScore regarding unjust enrichment.

Continue reading ›

|

A highly anticipated Supreme Court ruling regarding class certification recently fell a little flat of expectations. While defense attorneys feared the Court’s decision would make it easier for class-actions to attain certification using any evidence at the certification stage, plaintiffs attorneys feared the opposite. They were afraid of the Court going in the other direction and making it more difficult to use expert testimony to justify class certification. In the end the Court’s ruling was so narrow as to justify none of the fears of the two sides.

The matter before the Court involved Comcast and a class action of Comcast table television subscribers who allege that Comcast “clustered” its operations in certain regions (including the Philadelphia area) by acquiring competitors’ cable systems in those areas and then selling the competitors its own cable systems in other regions. This led to Comcast allegedly participating in four different means of stifling competition in its operating regions. One of these practices was using its dominant marketing position to deter others (called “overbuilders”) from opening competing networks in its regions.

At the class certification stage, the plaintiffs presented evidence from an expert witness who used an econometrics model to show how much lower Comcast’s prices would have been without its anticompetitive practices. However, this model showed only the effect of all four anticompetitive practices taken as a whole. The district court, on the other hand, said it would only certify a class of Comcast subscribers pursuing the overbuilder-deterrent theory of antitrust liability. While the district court recognized that the expert’s model did not calculate the damages (if any) from that particular antitrust practices, it nonetheless decided that such an amount could be calculated on a class-wide basis and so decided to certify the class. It ruled that to delve further into the specifics of the plaintiffs’ evidence would be to prematurely determine the merits of the case, a matter the court said is for the trial after the class has been certified. The Third Circuit Court agreed.

When the Supreme Court agreed to review the Third Circuit Court’s ruling, it deviated from the normal proceedings and formulated the question it wanted the parties to address: “Whether a district court may certify a class action without resolving whether the plaintiff has introduced admissible evidence, including expert testimony, to show that the case is susceptible to awarding damages on a class-wide basis.” The parties then debated whether the opinions of the plaintiffs’ expert witness were sufficient and whether they were even necessary to grant class certification.

The Supreme Court reversed the Third Circuit Court’s ruling in a 5-4 decision. According to the Supreme Court, Rule 23 (on class certification) must be satisfied. Rule 23 requires sufficient evidence that the class can prove a claim of damages in order to acquire certification. The Supreme Court ruled that this requirement must be met, even if it involves delving into the merits of the case. According to the Supreme Court’s decision, the district court’s ruling to refuse to consider any of the merit’s of the case “flatly contradicts” previous rulings on the matter by the Supreme Court, as well as Rule 23.

Despite the highly anticipated status of this ruling, it turned out to be rather disappointing as a narrow ruling, which applies to the unique context of this particular case. It is unlikely to affect most class action litigation.

Continue reading ›

|

 

With cancer being one of the biggest health scares in our country, it is frightening to think that something as seemingly innocent as a local park might be the cause of it. Whirlpool Park in Clyde, Ohio, so named because it was built by Whirlpool Corp. for its employees and their families, has been accused of being the cause of the numerous recent cancer cases which have led the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to designate the eastern Sandusky County as a cancer cluster.

Tim Lagrou’s wife was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in 2005 and died in October 2006 at the age of 23, leaving Tim and their one-year-old son. Lagrou and two other families have now filed a $750 million class action lawsuit in Sandusky County Common Pleas Court against Whirlpool Corp., the original owner of the park, and Grist Mill Creek, the company which has owned the park since 2008. The lawsuit alleges negligence on the part of the two companies which allegedly handled, disposed, and concealed toxic waste.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tested soil in Whirlpool Park and found PCBs, carcinogenic toxins, buried under the basketball court and what used to be the tennis court.

The park closed in 2006 (the same year Lagrou’s wife died) as interest in the park waned. It was bought by Jonathan and Robert Abdoo of Grist Mills Creek in 2008 with the intention of building on the site.

Thomas Bowlus, an attorney for Grist Mills Creek, said the Abdoos were first made aware of toxic materials on the site after the EPA launched its investigation in 2012. According to the lawsuit though, Grist Mills Creek either already knew, or should have known about the toxic chemicals. The lawsuit alleges that the company breached its duty of ordinary care to neighbors by permitting the toxic materials to remain in the park.

The class action includes people who visited or used the park between 1953 and 2008 and anyone who owns property within 4,000 feet of the park. Information from Whirlpool is needed to determine the exact number of potential class members but the plaintiffs believe there could be as many as 1,000.

The lawsuit is seeking $25,000 for the named plaintiffs (the Ohio state maximum for compensatory damages) and $750 million in punitive damages for the entire class. Joseph Albrechta, who represents the plaintiffs in the suit, said that the $750 million number “was thought about very carefully”. According to Whirlpool’s website, they make $19 billion annually in sales, meaning the $750 million would comprise just two weeks of sales for them. For the families however, that amount would go a long way in helping them restore the financial losses incurred by the park’s toxicity.

The lawsuit is also seeking the instigation of a medical monitoring fund and a park cleanup fund.
Whirlpool has announced that it will further test the land in the spring.
At least 35 children within a 6.7 mile radius in eastern Sandusky County have been affected by cancer since 1996. Four of those children have died, although the Ohio EPA has been unable to determine a cause.

Continue reading ›

|

Car manufacturers provide warranties for their vehicles, promising to pay for most repairs and replacements that the vehicle requires within a certain number of years of purchase of the car or up to a certain mileage. However, if enough cars experience failures of a particular variety after the warranty expires, the manufacturer could still find themselves in trouble.

Audi has found itself in that situation when a class-action lawsuit was filed against it on behalf of U.S.A. consumers who leased or bought a 2002-6 A4 or A6 model with a continuously variable transmission (CVT). The lawsuit, which was filed in January 2011, alleges that the CVTs had manufacturing and design flaws that caused them to fail and left owners with thousands of dollars in repair bills. The lawsuit also alleges that Audi knew about these flaws and intentionally concealed them from consumers.

In the preliminarily approved settlement, Audi denied the allegation that the CVTs were defective and insisted that it had “acted properly and in compliance with applicable laws and rules.” However, they also said that the expense of extended litigation “may not be in the best interests of their consumers.” Hence Audi’s settlement offer.

The settlement includes reimbursement “for certain C.V.T. transmission repairs” that occurred or will occur within 10 years or 100,000 miles of the original sale or lease of the vehicle. The original warranty covered only four years or 50,000 miles. The owners will be reimbursed for the replacement of various parts, depending on which model year they had.
The transmission control module is covered for 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 model year A4s and A6s. The valve body is covered for 2003-4 model A4 and A6. Replacement of the transmission without the valve body and transmission control module “is covered for the 2002, 2003, or 2004 model year Audi A4 or A6.” The settlement does not say whether it includes reimbursement of another transmission part or replacement of the entire transmission.

Some of the 2002 and 2003 models are probably beyond even the extended warranty by now, but the settlement will still reimburse the owners if the specified repair occurred within 100,000 miles or 10 years. The settlement further provides a “trade-in reimbursement cost” to make up for lost value of a 2002, 2003, or 2004 A4 or A6 that needed “a complete replacement of a C.V.T. transmission” after the normal warranty expired but the vehicle was sold or traded without repair.

The settlement does not specify whether owners in that group who had a major component fail, but did not need to replace the entire transmission, are eligible for reimbursement. It also did not indicate why the 2005-6 model year was not included in this part of the settlement.
The settlement, which covers about 64,000 Audi vehicles, was preliminarily approved on March 11 by Judge A. Howard Matz of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The hearing for final approval has been scheduled for September.

Continue reading ›

|

 

In class actions, the plaintiffs have long had the power to determine whether the case gets tried in state or federal court and they have most often chose to keep the cases in state courts. In 2005, Congress adopted the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) in order to limit the plaintiff’s power in that decision. CAFA imposed restrictions on the kinds of cases which the plaintiff would be able to prevent from getting moved to the federal courts. Among those restrictions are if the proposed class consists of at least 100 members, minimal diversities exist between the parties, and the aggregate amount involved in the dispute is at least $5 million.
In Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, the lead plaintiff promised not to ask for more than $5 million in damages on behalf of the absent class in order to prevent the case being moved to federal court. The issue reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which then rendered its first decision on CAFA.

In the case of Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, it is universally acknowledged that the claims of the putative class add up to more than $5 million. However, the lead plaintiff promised that the class will not ask for more than $5 million, in order to get around CAFA’s restrictions.

Although CAFA does not specifically prohibit artificially lowering the damages sought by a class action lawsuit in order to keep the case in the state courts, the Supreme Court still sided with the defendants. In its unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court reasons that, because the class had not yet been certified, the lead plaintiff was unable to make any promises regarding the value of the claims of the entire class. Until the class attains certification, the lead plaintiff can only make promises regarding the level of claims he, as an individual, seeks.
The Supreme Court pointed out that CAFA specifies that “to determine whether the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000,” the “claims of the individual class members shall be aggregated.”

The Supreme Court made sure to point out that it believed that this decision was in line with CAFA’s primary objective of ensuring “Federal court consideration of interstate cases of national importance.”

Continue reading ›

|

 

Facebook has long been an issue in the domain of free speech. People post whatever they want in view of the whole world. This time, an attorney was ordered by a judge to stop posting information about a case on his Facebook page even though he was addressing important public concerns regarding what he perceived to be an unfair class action settlement. This type of issue of public concern should receive the highest First Amendment Protection. Judges like any other public official should not be free to squelch criticism just because they don’t like it and believe it is inaccurate. Vigorous debate on issues of public concern in a community should be encouraged.

The case involves two McDonald’s locations in Detroit which serve McChicken sandwiches and Chicken McNuggets which are advertised as being halal. Halal is a form of preparing food in order to meet Islamic requirements. It includes invoking God’s name before slaughtering an animal which is to provide meat for consumption.

Two McDonald’s locations (13158 Ford Road and 14860 Michigan Ave.) are believed to be the only two McDonald’s locations to serve halal chicken. According to the suit, McDonald’s served non-halal chicken when it ran out of halal and failed to tell this to their customers. The class-action lawsuit, filed by Ahmed Ahmed of Dearborn Heights, includes anyone who ate non-halal chicken at one of the two McDonald’s locations since September 2005. The defendants are McDonald’s and franchise owner Finley’s Management Co.

On January 18, Wayne County Circuit Court Judge Kathleen Macdonald approved a settlement where McDonald’s and Finley must pay $700,000 to settle the suit. Ahmed was to receive about $20,000; the Health Unit on Davison Ave. in Detroit, also known as HUDA, was to get around $274,000; the Arab National Museum in Dearborn was to get about $150,000; and the attorneys were to get around $230,000.

Majed Moughni, an attorney who was not involved in the case before the settlement, posted on the Dearborn Area Community members Facebook page, which he runs, that he believed it was unfair that most of the money would go to those who ate the non-halal chicken. He asked for page members who had eaten the haram (or forbidden) chicken to leave contact information for themselves as well as for others who had eaten the meat
.
Kassem Dakhlallah, Ahmed’s lead attorney, filed a motion for injunctive relief against Moughni. Judge Macdonald ruled in Dakhlallah’s favor and order Moughni to remove information about the case from the Facebook page and to put her original class settlement and order against him on the page, which he did. She also forbade him to discuss the case with class members or the media without written permission from her and Jaafar & Mahdi Law Group, the firm representing Ahmed.

Moughni filed a motion to overturn the judge’s ruling against him, which she dismissed.
Paul Alan Levy of the Public Citizen’s Litigation Group of Washington D.C. filed a motion on behalf of Moughni to lift the order against him. They claimed that he was not acting as an attorney, but merely soliciting feedback and that his First Amendment rights had been violated.
Although the allegation that Moughni was soliciting clients through his Facebook page was never an issue when initially seeking the injunction, McDonald’s used it as a reason for the injunction to remain, as well as allegations that the comments about the case which he posted on the Facebook page were misleading.

Levy argued that Moughni was not soliciting clients, but merely speaking as a concerned member of the community. He pointed out that there was no evidence that Moughni looked to be paid for gathering the feedback, but was merely rallying the community against what he perceived to be an injustice.

Judge Macdonald said that Moughni can’t separate the fact that he’s an attorney but she did agree to dissolve the injunction and extend the settlement period. She said that Moughni can continue to identify himself as a class member, but not an attorney in the case.
While McDonald’s agreed to the removal of the injunction (having been satisfied that Moughni was not, in fact, soliciting new clients) they claimed that his misleading statements about the settlement were cause for reopening negotiations.

Levy is concerned however, that the fight may not yet be over. McDonald’s has been complaining about the added cost of reopening the settlement period. They estimate that around $30,000 will be lost from the Arab National Museum’s portion of the settlement, money which could finance ten scholarships through the charity. Levy worries that McDonald’s may be leveraging to sue Moughni for damages after the current case has settled.
This may not be the smartest move for McDonald’s, though. While Moughni’s comments might have gone largely unnoticed if left alone, McDonald’s has given the issue light by filing for the injunction. In the end, the company’s image may be damaged by flaunting their dirty laundry and airing the fact that they are trying to preclude a member of the community from someone speaking out against a settlement that gives money to charity but not to the damaged class members. Judges should not be shutting down valuable speech rights. There has been a long tradition in this country that the First Amendment precludes public officials including judges from silencing criticism they don’t like. It is particularly troublesome that the Court attempted to shut off criticism on a matter of public interest. Moughni should have been permitted to freely voice his criticism of the settlement. That could never have interfered with the Court rendering a fair decision to approve or disapprove the settlement. Having already preliminarily approved the settlement, the Court appears to have had an interest in having its ruling upheld and let that concern over ride the public’s right to vigorously debate the settlement and even make material errors in that debate. The remedy to cure any false or erroneous statements in the debate is more rather than less speech.

The settlement period has been extended for another 28 days, which all sides agree with.

Continue reading ›

|

 

After the U.S. Supreme Court’s controversial decision in Concepcion, there has been much debate over the rising tendency of companies to forbid their customers from bringing class actions against them. Another company has recently won another round. Charles Schwab Corp. modified their account agreements last year, prohibiting class-action lawsuits and restricting the ability of consumers to consolidate arbitration cases. This decision came after settlements of class-action lawsuits in which Schwab agreed to pay $235 million for misleading marketing of its high-interest YieldPlus money market fund between May 2006 and March 2008.
The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA’s) enforcement department charged Schwab with violating its rules by restricting consumers’ class-action and arbitration rights. The FINRA hearing panel agreed that it was against the rules of the private group, which regulates broker-dealers and administers arbitration panels. However, due to the Supreme Court’s recent interpretation of the Federal Arbitration Act, the panel found that those rules are unenforceable.
While FINRA does not actually make or enforce the law, it can tell broker-dealers that, if they want to remain members, they have to abide by its “fair-play” rules. The Securities and Exchange Commission requires all broker-dealers to be members and all brokers who sell securities to be licensed by FINRA.

Of the three actions FINRA brought against Schwab, it did win won. The hearing panel decided that Schwab had violated FINRA’s rules by limiting the powers of arbitrators to consolidate individual client claims in hearings and fined Schwab $500,000 for the violation. It also ordered the company to remove that condition from its customer agreements. A spokesman for Schwab said the language has already been removed.

A FINRA spokeswoman said it is currently reviewing the decision and cannot yet comment on whether they will appeal to the National Adjudicatory Council. Plaintiffs lawyers though, have speculated that an appeal is almost certain.

Schwab has said in a statement that it is pleased with the decision. “The company believes that customers are better served through the existing FINRA arbitration process and that class-action lawsuits are a cumbersome and less effective means of resolving disputes – for both parties.”

Officials in the securities industry anticipate that more firms will try to revise their customer agreements after this decision.

While some have called this a significant step backwards for customers, others are not so sure. While the ruling does threaten most securities class-actions, the panel does not make the law and so this decision is unlikely to affect far-reaching law.

Continue reading ›

|

The terms of a proposed class action settlement call for Merrill Lynch to pay $40 million to settle claims brought by approximately 1,400 brokers regarding deferred compensation that Merrill Lynch allegedly refused to pay the brokers after its merger with Bank of America.

Despite the large price tag, however, the proposed settlement may still leave claims with roughly 2,000 brokers unsettled, according to MSN Money. The brokers who are not party to the class action settlement would be left to privately pursue their claims against Merrill Lynch. The proposed settlement may still leave roughly 2,000 brokers to battle privately against the brokerage.

What is deferred compensation?

Continue reading ›
Contact Information
Chicago Office
19 S LaSalle St #702
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: 630-333-0333
Mailing Address
17W220 22nd St #410
Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
Phone: 630-333-0333 Please direct all mail correspondence to our Oakbrook Terrace address office.
Highland Park Office
189 Whistler Rd
Highland Park, IL 60035
Phone: 630-710-4990
We accept the following credit cards
Credit Cards Accepted
We accept payment via Venmo at: @L-A-LAW
Phone: 603-333-0333
Visit our site: chicagobusinesslawfirm.com

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2026, DiTommaso Lubin, PC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design