Boulder Brands named in class action alleging Glutino products are slack-filled.

California’s Fair Packaging and Labeling Act provides: “No food containers shall be made, formed, or filled as to be misleading.” (California Business & Professions Code § 12606.2(b).) “A container that does not allow the consumer to fully view its contents shall be considered to be filled as to be misleading if it contains nonfunctional slack fill.” (California Business & Professions Code § 12606.2(c).) Section 12606.2(c) defines “slack fill” as “the difference between the actual capacity of a container and the volume of product contained therein.” According to the complaint, Boulder Brands USA, Inc., maker of Glutino Gluten Free Pretzels, markets and sells its pretzel products in packaging that is 40% empty space.


Nestle named in class action lawsuits over mislabeling of SweeTARTS

As alleged, the Nestle labels SweeTARTS as if they contain only natural ingredients and are flavored only with natural ingredients when the Product actually contains undisclosed artificial flavors in violation of state and federal law. Defendant’s packaging, labeling, and advertising scheme is intended to give California consumers the impression that they are buying a premium, “all natural” product with natural flavoring ingredients instead of a product that is artificially flavored.

Plaintiff, who was deceived by Defendant’s unlawful conduct and purchased the Products in California, brings this action on her own behalf and on behalf of California consumers to remedy Defendant’s unlawful acts.


General Motors named in class action lawsuit over defect in 2010-2017 Chevrolet Equinox vehicles which leads to excess oil consumption




GM designed, manufactured, distributed, marketed, sold, and leased Model Year 2010- 2017 Chevrolet Equinox vehicles with 2.4-liter engines (“Class Vehicles” or “Vehicles”) to Plaintiff and Class Members.

As alleged, prior to 2010, GM knew that the Class Vehicles contained one or more design and/or manufacturing defects, including, but not limited to, defects contained in the Class Vehicles’ engines that cause them to be unable to properly utilize the engine oil and, in fact, to improperly burn off and/or consume abnormally high amounts of oil (the “Oil Consumption Defect.”)

The Oil Consumption Defect is a safety concern because it prevents the engine from maintaining the proper level of engine oil, causing excessive oil consumption that cannot be reasonably anticipated or predicted. Therefore, the Oil Consumption Defect is unreasonably dangerous because it can cause engine failure while the Class Vehicles are in operation at any time and under any driving conditions or speeds, exposing the Class Vehicle drivers, their passengers, and others who share the road with them to serious risks of accidents and injury.

Because the Oil Consumption Defect can cause the Class Vehicles to consume unacceptably high amounts of engine oil, the rate of oil consumption for some Class Vehicles can be as high as one quart of oil per 1,000 miles driven. The Oil Consumption Defect thus requires the addition of substantial amounts of oil between scheduled oil changes and can even result in engine damage. As a result of the Oil Consumption Defect, its potential safety hazards, and GM’s refusal to acknowledge and fix the problem, many consumers have resorted to purchasing an extra supply of oil and carrying it with them at all times when driving.

The complaint claims GM knew of and concealed the existence of the Oil Consumption Defect contained in every Class Vehicle, along with the attendant dangerous safety problems and associated costs, from Plaintiff and Class Members at the time they purchased or leased their Class Vehicles and thereafter. GM’s concealment caused Plaintiffs and Class Members to experience the Oil Consumption Defect throughout the life of the Class Vehicles, which includes use within the warranty period.

Despite notice of the Oil Consumption Defect from various internal sources, GM has not recalled the Class Vehicles to repair the defect, has not offered all of its customers a suitable repair or replacement free of charge, and has not offered to reimburse all Class Vehicle owners and leaseholders who incurred costs relating to the defect, including, but not limited to, costs related to inspections, diagnosis, repairs, and unreasonably frequent oil changes/additions between scheduled oil changes.

As a result of their reliance on GM’s omissions and/or affirmative misrepresentations, owners and/or lessees of the Class Vehicles have suffered ascertainable losses of money, property, and/or of value of their Class Vehicles.


Gerber named in class action lawsuit over false and captive advertising of its Good Start baby product

The complaint alleges a pattern of deceptive and unfair business practices by Gerber Products Company in the marketing and sale of Good Start, a line of infant formula made with whey-protein concentrate that Defendant produces, distributes, markets, and sells.

The Complaint challenging deceptive and misleading representations that Defendant made in promoting and selling Good Start. Beginning in 2011, Defendant has claimed in advertising and product labeling that: (a) Good Start is the first and only formula whose consumption reduces the risk of infants developing allergies, and (b) Good Start is the first and only formula that the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) endorses to reduce the risk of developing certain allergies, such as atopic dermatitis.

Due to Defendant’s deceptive representations that Good Start provided health benefits beyond the benefits other baby formulas offered, and Defendant’s misleading representations that the FDA had unqualifiedly certified its health claims, Plaintiff and the Class were injured by purchasing Good Start at an inflated cost.

General Mills named in class action lawsuit over Nature Valley products claiming to be made with 100% Natural Whole Grain Oats” despite containing glyphosate, a potent biocide and human endocrine disruptor

Nature Valley

This is a proposed consumer protection class action against General Mills for injunction relief and economic damages based on misrepresentations and omissions committed by General Mills regarding Nature Valley, which General Mills falsely and deceptively labels and markets as “Made with 100% Natural Whole Grain Oats.” In fact, the products contain glyphosate, a potent and unnatural biocide.

Defendant aggressively advertises and promotes its Nature Valley products (as defined below) as “Made with 100% Natural Whole Grain Oats” (see Product Image, infra.). These claims are false, misleading, and deceptive. The products at issue do not comprise “100% natural whole grain oats,” but instead contain the chemical glyphosate, a potent biocide and human endocrine disruptor, with detrimental health effects that are still becoming known.

Although the exact source of glyphosate in these oat products is known only to General Mills and its suppliers, glyphosate most likely makes its way into the products when  the oat crops are sprayed with the chemical in order to dry them out and produce an earlier, more uniform harvest—a practice with no health benefits, meant only to increase yield and, therefore, profit

Plaintiff brings this deceptive advertising case on behalf of a class of California consumers who purchased the oat products, and seek relief including refunds to purchasers for the falsely advertised products and a court-ordered corrective advertising campaign to inform the public of the true nature of General Mills’ glyphosate-contaminated products.



Herr Foods named in a class action lawsuit over misleadingly labeling products as all natural


The class action is brought on behalf a nationwide class of consumers who purchased one or more of the following: Herr’s Popped Chips (All Natural with Sea Salt, Sour Cream & Onion, Tangy Barbeque), Herr’s “All Natural” Tortilla Chips, Herr’s All Natural Sourdough Pretzels, Herr’s All Natural Potato Chips (Sea Salt, Russet, Ripples, Crisp n’ Tasty, Lattice Cut), and Herr’s Potato Chips (Sour Cream & Onion, Salt n’ Vinegar) (collectively, the “Misbranded Products”).

As alleged, the Misbranded Products are postured to appeal to consumers like Plaintiff who prefer to consume natural products that do not contain artificial, synthetic, highly processed ingredients, color additives or chemical preservatives. The Misbranded Products are marketed as containing “No Preservatives” and “No MSO” and, on certain packages, as being “All Natural.”

Furthermore, some of the Misbranded Products claim to have “No Trans Fat.” These claims are made on the front of the product labels of the Misbranded Products and on Herr’s website.

As further alleged, these representations are false and deceptive to consumers, who rely on them to make their purchases. In fact, the Misbranded Products are not natural because they contain a host of synthetic, artificial, and highly processed ingredients, chemical preservatives, artificial coloring or flavoring, and genetically modified (OM) material. Moreover, many of the Misbranded Products purporting to be healthy actually contain high levels of fat that disqualify Defendant from making that claim.


Google named in class action lawsuit alleging its conduct violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act


The complaint alleges that Google collected, stored and used Plaintiff’s and other similarly situated individuals’ biometric identifiers and biometric information (collectively, “biometrics”) without informed written consent, in direct violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act

A “biometric identifier” is any personal feature that is unique to an individual, including fingerprints, iris scans, DNA and “face geometry,” among others. “Biometric information” is any information captured, converted, stored, or shared based on a person’s biometric identifier used to identify an individual.

The Illinois Legislature has found that “[b]iometrics are unlike other unique identifiers that are used to access finances or other sensitive information.” “For example, social security numbers, when compromised, can be changed. Biometrics, however, are biologically unique to the individual; therefore, once compromised, the individual has no recourse, is at heightened risk for identity theft, and is likely to withdraw from biometric facilitated transactions.” Id.

As alleged, in recognition of these concerns over the security of individuals’ biometrics – particularly in the City of Chicago, which was recently selected by major national corporations as a “pilot testing site[] for new applications of biometric-facilitated financial transactions, including finger-scan technologies at grocery stores, gas stations, and school cafeterias”– the Illinois Legislature enacted the BIPA, which provides, inter alia, that a private entity like Google may not obtain and/or possess an individual’s biometrics unless it: (1) informs that person in writing that biometric identifiers or information will be collected or stored, see id.; (2) informs that person in writing of the specific purpose and length of term for which such biometric identifiers or biometric information is being collected, stored and used, (3) receives a written release from the person for the collection of his or her biometric identifiers or information, see id.; and (4) publishes publically available written retention schedules and guidelines for permanently destroying biometric identifiers and biometric information.

In direct violation of each of the foregoing provisions of § 15(a) and § 15(b) of the BIPA, Google is actively collecting, storing, and using – without providing notice, obtaining informed written consent or publishing data retention policies – the biometrics of thousands of unwitting Illinois residents.

Specifically, Google has created, collected and stored, in conjunction with its cloud-based “Google Photos” service, millions of “face templates” (or “face prints”) – highly detailed geometric maps of the face – from millions of Illinois residents. Google creates these templates using sophisticated facial recognition technology that extracts and analyzes data from the points and contours of faces that appear in photos taken on Google “Droid” devices and uploaded to the cloud-based Google Photos service. Each face template that Google extracts is unique to a particular individual, in the same way that a fingerprint or voiceprint uniquely identifies one and only one person.

Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated to prevent Google from further violating the privacy rights of Illinois residents, and to recover statutory damages for Google’s unauthorized collection, storage, and use of these individuals’ biometrics in violation of the BIPA.

Zara named in class action lawsuit over violation of th Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act


The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) provides in relevant that “no person that accepts credit cards or debit cards for the transaction of business shall print more than the last 5 digits of the card number. . . upon any receipt provided to the cardholder at the point of the sale or transaction”

As alleged, Defendant has willfully violated this law and failed to protect Plaintiff and others similarly situated against identity theft and credit and debit card fraud by printing more than the last 5 digits of the card number and the name of the cardholder on receipts provided to credit card and debit card cardholders transacting business with Defendant. This conduct is in direct violation of FACTA.

Defendant has violated FACTA, and have thereby placed the security of Plaintiff and similarly situated Class members at risk. As a result of Defendant’s unlawful practice of violating FACTA’s provisions intended to safeguard against identity theft and credit and debit card fraud, Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of herself and the Class, statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorney fees, all of which are expressly made available by statute.

Barnes & Noble named in class action lawsuit over defectively designed Nook Reader



This class action arises out of defectively designed chargers for Defendant Barnes and Noble, Inc.’s tablet reading devices, or “e-Readers, branded as the Nook Color and Nook Simple Touch.

According to the complaint, the Nook Color and Nook Simple Touch series contain defectively designed and implemented wall chargers, replacement chargers, and car chargers that dangerously fray and cause the adapters to fail after a few months of use.

As alleged, purchasers of the Nook Color and Nook Simple Touch series have been damaged by purchasing these specific e-Readers and receiving a product that fails to function as reasonably expected. These e-Readers are often rendered completely useless due to the defect.

Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who purchased a Nook Color e-Reader, Nook Simple Touch e-Reader, and/or accompanying charging accessories for consumer or household purposes herein during the Class Period. named in class action over failure to provide users with ability to cancel contract

Plaintiff paid $30 per month to join’s online dating service for approximately three months.

At the time Plaintiff joined Defendant’s online dating service, Defendant’s contract with California consumers failed to include clauses as required by Cal. Civ. Code § 1694, et seq. that “[e]very dating service contract contain on its face, and in close proximity to the space reserved for the signature of the buyer, a conspicuous statement in a size equal to at least 10-point boldface type, as follows: You, the buyer, may cancel this agreement, without any penalty or obligation, at any time prior to midnight of the original contract seller’s third business day following the date of this contract, excluding Sundays and holidays. To cancel this agreement, mail or deliver a signed and dated notice, or send a telegram which states that you, the buyer, are cancelling agreement, or words of similar effect. This notice shall be sent to: [Name of the business that sold you the contract, Address of the business that sold you the contract].

The class consists of All persons within California who purchased a subscription from Defendant via Defendant’s website that failed to include the Notice of said consumer’s right to cancel the contract with Defendant within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint.