Neurobrands named in a class action lawsuit over falsely claiming products are flavored only with natural ingredients.

 

Neurobrands manufactures, distributes, advertises, markets and sells a variety of purportedly natural fruit flavored products known as the Neuro beverage products, including, neuroSONIC Energy Refreshed superfruit infusion, neuroBLISS white raspberry, and the neuroPROTEIN watermelon mint products (collectively, the “Products”).

As alleged, the labeling of the Products is false and misleading. Specifically, the Products are labeled as if they are flavored only with natural ingredients when they in fact contain an undisclosed artificial flavor, malic acid, in violation of state and federal law.

The complaint claims that Defendant’s packaging, labeling, and advertising scheme is intended to give consumers the impression that they are buying a premium, all-natural product with only natural flavoring ingredients instead of a product that contains artificial chemicals and that is artificially flavored.

 

COMPLAINT

 

Barilla named in class action lawsuit over claims its products are fee of preservatives

 

The complaint on behalf of a nation-wide class of consumers claims Barilla falsely advertises certain products as having “No Preservatives” despite the fact that they contain citric acid which is being used as a preservative.

As claimed, Defendant misleadingly, illegally, and deceptively seek to capitalize on consumers’ increased interest in more nutritious foods free of additives and willingness to pay more for products perceived to meet this preference.

Products include

Barilla® Marinara Sauce

Barilla® Tomato Basil Sauce

Barilla® Mushroom Sauce

Barilla® Spicy Marinara Sauce

Barilla® Roasted Garlic Sauce

Barilla® Sweet Peppers Sauce

Barilla® Traditional Sauce

Barilla® Chunky Traditional Sauce

Barilla® Tuscan Herb Sauce

COMPLAINT

Walgreen named in class action lawsuit over false advertising of Finest Nutrition glucosamine supplements

 

According to the complaint, consumers across the country purchased more than $130 billion of dietary supplements in 2016. One of the most popular dietary supplements is glucosamine, which some marketers believe will grow to a market of more than $750 million by 2022.

Glucosamine is commonly sold in two formulations: glucosamine sulfate and glucosamine hydrochloride which have unique molecular structures. As alleged, many consumers prefer glucosamine sulfate because it is believed to be the more effective version of glucosamine. It also commands premium prices compared to glucosamine hydrochloride.

Plaintiff purchased a bottle of Finest Nutrition brand glucosamine sulfate, which states in large font on the label that each serving contains 1000 mg of glucosamine sulfate. However, laboratory testing confirms that the product actually contains Glucosamine Hydrochloride and does not contain any Glucosamine Sulfate. Accordingly, according to the complaint, Walgreens is selling a dietary supplement that simply is not what it claims to be.

Complaint

Trader Joe’s named in class action lawsuit over advertising of T’s & J’s Sour Gummies

Plaintiff files this class action lawsuit on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons who purchased “Trader Joe’s T’s & J’s Sour Gummies.” At all times, Plaintiff believed that she was purchasing Product with only natural ingredients and/or flavors. On information and belief, Plaintiff has the understanding that the Product contains non-natural ingredients.

As alleged in the Complaint, the Defendants make false, deceptive and misleading claims regarding ingredients used in and characteristics of the Product. Defendants created and/or authorized the false, misleading, and deceptive advertisements and/or packaging and labeling for the Product that falsely claim they consist of only natural ingredients, “no artificial flavors” and conceals the fact that the Product contains DL-malic acid, a harmful artificial and synthetic flavor additive.

Complaint

Subaru named in class action lawsuit for defect in pistons, engine management system and positive crankcase ventilation in 2009-2014 Impreza WRX vehicles

 

This is a class action on behalf of owners of 2009-2014 Impreza WRX vehicles (“class vehivcles.” Subaru introduced the class engines in the United States market in late 2007 for the 2008 model year. Class engines are predisposed to premature engine failure. Class vehicles are defective with respect to improperly designed and manufactured pistons and an engine management system and PCV (positive crankcase ventilation) system that subjects class engines engine to premature catastrophic engine piston ringlands failure (the “Piston Ringlands Defect”).

WRX and WRX STi engines are high performance versions of the 2.5 liter displacement EJ series engines used in other model Subaru vehicles including but not limited to the Forrester, Legacy and Outback. These performance modifications nearly doubled the horsepower for WRX and WRX STi engines over the standard base 2.5 liter engine. These performance modifications that created substantially increased power output did not include necessary internal engine modifications to prevent damage to the piston ringlands.

Inadequate class engine piston ringland durability was caused by casting the class engine pistons from hypereutectic aluminum silicon (Al-Si) alloy. While this alloy has some strength attributes over conventional cast aluminum pistons, Al-Si pistons and in particular piston ringland are more brittle. This Al-Si materials selection and cast construction method resulted in insufficient strength pistons in class engines.

Another contributing cause to class engine failure was an inadequate PCV system that allowed excessive engine crankcase oil vapors to be introduced into the engine combustion chambers thereby lowering the overall fuel/air octane mixture. This causes increased combustion forces acting on the piston through a phenomenon know as detonation. Detonation is a well-known cause of internal engine component damage particularly including piston and piston ringland failure.

Failure of class engines due to the Piston Ringland Defect results in sudden power loss and/or stalling that severely compromises the owner’s ability to maintain vehicle control. The defective class engine components and engine management system also causes sudden an catastrophic engine self-destruction as overheated internal parts seize.

The failures in the class engines due to the Piston Ringland Defect pose a serious safety issue while the vehicle is being operated since there is loss of engine power without warning and the loss of power-assisted steering and reduced braking caused by lack of engine vacuum if the engine stalls. In class vehicles equipped with manual transmissions, the drive wheels will lock and cause loss of directional stability and steering if the engine stalls and the clutch is not immediately disengaged.

Nissan named in class action lawsuit over defective continuously variable automatic transmissions in Altima vehicles

A class action complaint was filed on behalf of owners of Model Year 2013–2014 Nissan Altima vehicles (“Subject Vehicles”) which allegedly contain defective continuously variable automatic transmissions (“CVT”) that cause shuddering, hesitation, stalling, unusual noises, and ultimately, premature transmission failure. The CVTs pose a significant safety risk. When the shuddering occurs, momentum of the Subject Vehicle is suddenly lost, the rate of speed drops or the vehicle stalls, and the brake lights do not illuminate. The defect is especially dangerous because it manifests when the driver presses the accelerator. Just when the driver attempts to accelerate, nothing occurs. This is sometimes followed by an unexpected surge of power. The CVTs increase the risk that the driver will lose control and cause a collision.

When owners of Subject Vehicles seek repair of their defective transmissions, they are routinely informed that the transmission requires replacement, at a cost upwards of $3,000. With the replacement, the vehicles are then equipped with another defective CVT, and the cycle repeats.

According to the complaint, Nissan knew the CVTs were defective in this way, were prone to shuddering, hesitation, stalling, unusual noises, and eventual premature failure yet failed to disclose these material facts to Plaintiff and other Class members. Nissan misrepresented the safety risk the Subject Vehicles pose to occupants and the public. Nissan knowingly engaged in omissions of material facts and false and misleading representations regarding the performance of CVTs in the Subject Vehicles.

As a result of Nissan’s unfair, deceptive, and fraudulent conduct, Plaintiff and the other Class members received a car worth less than as represented and less than what they paid for when purchasing their Subject Vehicles.

COMPLAINT

Hyundai named in class action lawsuit over defect in powertrain

 

Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons in the United States who purchased or leased 2017 Hyundai Santa Fe vehicles that were designed, manufactured, distributed, marketed, sold and leased by Defendant Hyundai Motor America.

According to the complaint, beginning in 2016, if not before, Defendant knew that the Class Vehicles contain one or more defects that cause, among other problems, significantly delayed acceleration, loss of power, or rough shifting (“Powertrain Defect”). The Powertrain Defect has been documented to occur without warning during vehicle operation and poses an extreme and unreasonable safety hazard to drivers, passengers and pedestrians. Numerous Class Vehicle owners have reported a significant delay in the Class Vehicle’s response while attempting to accelerate from a stop and/or while cruising in situations that require the ability to accelerate rapidly (e.g., merging on to the highway, changing lanes, etc.). Other Class Vehicle owners have reported jerking, lurching, and/or engine revving associated with the delayed acceleration.

COMPLAINT

Nestle named in class action lawsuit over use of No GMO Ingredients™ seal

A class action lawsuit was filed against Nestle USA, Inc  for misleading consumers about its products that bear a “No GMO Ingredients ™” certificate of approval on the packaging  that appears to be that of an independent third-party, when, it in fact, is not.

Recognizing the value of independent certification in the marketplace, the Federal Trade Commission has warned companies against representations involving independent certification because they are misleading to consumers and has issued guidelines for companies to follow in order not to deceive. “It is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by implication, that a product, package, or service has been endorsed or certified by an independent third party. 16 C.F.R. §260.6

As alleged in the complaint, in violation of these principles, Defendant has represented to consumers that several of the products it sells have been certified by an independent third party as not containing GMO ingredients, by affixing a No GMO Ingredients TM seal on the Products. According to the complaint, these representations by Defendant are false and the No GMO Ingredients ™ seal of approval is not the product of a neutral, third party, but instead the work of Defendant itself.

COMPLAINT

 

 

ZEP Inc named in employment class action for failure to pay proper wages and commissions to outside sales representatives

 

This is a class, collective, and representative action brought by Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. Plaintiffs and those similarly situated are or were employed by Defendants as Employees and Outside Salespersons and were denied proper compensation as required by state and federal law.

The Class consists of every person who has worked for Defendants in California and the United States as an Outside Sales Representative within four years of the filing of this action (the “Class Period”).

During the Class Period, Defendants failed to pay wages/commissions to Plaintiffs and each member of the putative classes as required by federal and state law. Further, the Defendants have engaged in an unlawful policy and practice of taking accounts and commissions obtained by salespersons in violation of both the written contract that all salespersons signed and applicable law.

As alleged, ZEP has a history of engaging in unlawful conduct with regard to its outside salespersons. At the time these accounts were obtained, each representative was never informed that the accounts or the commissions generated from these accounts could be taken from them unilaterally by Defendants. In fact, Plaintiffs and the current and former employees they seek to represent were informed in writing that such commissions would be earned when payment was made by the customer.

The representatives were also promised in writing that any changes to any commission program could only be applied “prospectively”. In other words, any new accounts obtained after a modification to the agreement could be made, but any new commission plan would not be effective retroactively, i.e., to accounts that had been obtained prior to any modification of the plan.

According to the complaint, in direct contradiction with those written promises, beginning in approximately 2017, ZEP began unilaterally and surreptitiously taking accounts/commissions obtained by their outside salespersons. Effective April 1, 2018, ZEP placed a policy in writing in which it acknowledged that it would began taking accounts/commissions from these sales persons.

COMPLAINT

Volvo named in class action lawsuit over failure of electric motor to perform as promised in XC90 T8 sport utility vehicles

 

Volvo manufacturers and sells premium automobiles, including sports utility vehicles. Volvo markets its environmental and safety features to differentiate Volvo cars from those of other car manufacturers, and offers those features as reasons for consumers to purchase Volvo cars.

Among its product offerings, Volvo sells the XC90 T8 (“T8”), which is a seven passenger sport utility vehicle that contains a twin engine combining a gasoline engine with an electric motor, and has the ability to operate solely on the electric motor. In various press releases, brochures and product placements with trade publications, as set forth in more detail below, Volvo repeatedly represented in 2014 and 2015 that the T8 would have the capability to be driven solely on a battery charge for approximately 25 miles, which Volvo claimed would cover the average commute and daily errands for most people.

As alleged, the T8 does not come close to achieving 25 miles on a full electric charge. Rather, the T8 provides approximately 8 to 10 miles on a full electric charge—a far cry from the 25 miles promised by Volvo. And while Volvo now apparently claims that the range on the T8 is 17 miles, the only apparent method to even come close to the 17-mile range is to drive the T8 at 40 miles an hour on the highway—with all the safety features disabled.

Plaintiff and others paid a hefty premium for the T8’s electric motor. The seven-passenger Volvo XC90 T6, which does not contain the electric motor, starts at $49,800. By contrast, the seven-passenger T8, with the electric motor, starts at $68,100. All the other base features on the T6 and T8 are identical. Thus, Volvo is receiving, and Plaintiff paid, an $18,300 price premium for the electric motor—an electric motor that does not perform as promised.

Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of the following class: All individuals who purchased or leased a Volvo XC90 T8. Plaintiff asserts claims for violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and similar consumer fraud statutes of other states, fraud, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff seeks to recover the damages he has suffered as the result of Volvo’s conduct.

COMPLAINT