Consumer Protection Litigation
Attorneys at Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP have advocated for consumers’ rights, successfully challenging some of the nation’s largest and most powerful corporations for a variety of improper, unfair and deceptive business practices. Through our efforts, we have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars and other significant remedial benefits for our consumer clients.
For example, in Bates v. Kashi Co., et al., Case No. 11-CV-1967-H BGS (S.D. Cal. 2011), as co-lead counsel for the class, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP secured a $5.0 million settlement fund on behalf of California consumers who purchased Kashi products that were deceptively labeled as “nothing artificial” and “all natural.” The settlement provides class members with a full refund of the purchase price in addition to requiring Kashi to modify its labeling and advertising to remove “All Natural” and “Nothing Artificial” from certain products. As noted by Judge Marilyn L. Huff in approving the settlement, “Plaintiffs’ counsel has extensive experience acting as class counsel in consumer class action cases, including cases involving false advertising claims.”
Moreover, in Thomas v. Global Vision Products, Case No. RG-03091195 (California Superior Ct., Alameda Cty.), Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP served as co-lead counsel in a consumer class action lawsuit against Global Vision Products, Inc., the manufacturer of the Avacor hair restoration product and its officers, directors and spokespersons, in connection with the false and misleading advertising claims regarding the Avacor product. Though the company had declared bankruptcy in 2007, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, along with its co-counsel, successfully prosecuted two trials to obtain relief for the class of Avacor purchasers. In January 2008, a jury in the first trial returned a verdict of almost $37 million against two of the creators of the product. In November 2009, another jury awarded plaintiff and the class more than $50 million in a separate trial against two other company directors and officers. This jury award represented the largest consumer class action jury award in California in 2009 (according to VerdictSearch, a legal trade publication).
Below is a non-exhaustive list of settlements where Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP and its partners have served as lead or co-lead counsel:
• In re: Alexia Foods, Inc. Litigation., Case No. 4:11-cv-06119 (N.D. Cal. 2011). The firm represented a proposed class of all persons who purchased certain frozen potato products that were deceptively advertised as “natural” or “all natural.” A settlement was obtained, providing class members with a cash refunds up to $35.00 and requiring defendant to cease using a synthetic chemical compound in future production of the products.
• In re: Haier Freezer Consumer Litig., Case No. 5:11-CV-02911-EJD (N.D. Cal. 2011). The firm represented a nationwide class of consumers who purchased certain model freezers, which were sold in violation of the federal standard for maximum energy consumption. A settlement was obtained, providing class members with cash payments of between $50 and $325.80.
• Loreto v. Coast Cutlery Co., Case No. 11-3977 SDW-MCA (D.N.J. 2011) The firm represented a proposed nationwide class of people who purchased stainless steel knives and multi-tools that were of a lesser quality than advertised. A settlement was obtained, providing class members with a full refund of the purchase price.
• Rossi v Procter & Gamble Company., Case No. 11-7238 (D.N.J. 2011). The firm represented a nationwide class of consumers who purchased deceptively marketed “Crest Sensitivity” toothpaste. A settlement was obtained, providing class members with a full refund of the purchase price.
• In re: Michaels Stores Pin Pad Litig., Case No. 1:11-CV-03350 CPK (N.D. Ill. 2011). The firm represented a nationwide class of persons against Michaels Stores, Inc. for failing to secure and safeguard customers’ personal financial data. A settlement was obtained, which provided class members with monetary recovery for unreimbursed out-of-pocket losses incurred in connection with the data breach, as well as up to four years of credit monitoring services.
• Kelly, v. Phiten, Case No. 4:11-cv-00067 JEG (S.D. Iowa 2011). The firm represented a proposed nationwide class of consumers who purchased Defendant Phiten USA’s jewelry and other products, which were falsely promoted to balance a user’s energy flow. A settlement was obtained, providing class members with up to 300% of the cost of the product and substantial injunctive relief requiring Phiten to modify its advertising claims.
• In re: HP Power-Plug Litigation, Case No. 06-1221 (N.D. Cal. 2006). The firm represented a proposed nationwide class of consumers who purchased defective laptops manufactured by defendant. A settlement was obtained, which provided full relief to class members, including among other benefits a cash payments up to $650.00 per class member, or in the alternative, a repair free-of-charge and new limited warranties accompanying repaired laptops.
• Delre v. Hewlett-Packard Co., C.A. No. 3232-02 (N.J. Super. Ct. 2002). The firm represented a proposed nationwide class of consumers (approximately 170,000 members) who purchased, HP dvd-100i dvd-writers (“HP 100i”) based on misrepresentations regarding the write-once (“DVD+R”) capabilities of the HP 100i and the compatibility of DVD+RW disks written by HP 100i with DVD players and other optical storage devices. A settlement was obtained, which provided full relief to class members, including among other benefits, the replacement of defective HP 100i with its more current, second generation DVD writer, the HP 200i, and/or refunds the $99 it had charged some consumers to upgrade from the HP 100i to the HP 200i prior to the settlement.
In addition, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP and its partners are currently serving as lead or co-lead counsel in the following class action cases:
• Dei Rossi et al. v. Whirlpool Corp., Case No. 2:12-cv-00125-TLN-JFM (E.D. Cal. 2012) (representing a proposed class of people who purchased mislabeled KitchenAid brand refrigerators from Whirlpool Corp.)
• In re: Scotts EZ Seed Litigation, Case No. 7:12-cv-04727-VB (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (representing a proposed class of purchasers of mulch grass seed products advertised as a superior grass seed product capable of growing grass in the toughest conditions and with half the water.)
• In re Sinus Buster Products Consumer Litig., Case No. 1:12-cv-02429-ADS-AKT (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (representing a proposed nationwide class of purchasers of assorted cold, flu and sinus products.)
• Forcellati et al., v Hyland’s, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-01983-GHK-MRW (C.D. Cal. 2012) (representing a certified nationwide class of purchasers of children’s cold and flu products.)
• Avram v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:11-cv-06973 KM-MCA (D.N.J. 2011) (representing a proposed nationwide class of persons who purchased mislabeled refrigerators from Samsung Electronics America, Inc. for misrepresenting the energy efficiency of certain refrigerators.)
• Dzielak v. Whirlpool Corp., et al., Case No. 12-CIV-0089 SRC-MAS (D.N.J. 2011) (representing a proposed nationwide class of purchasers of mislabeled Maytag brand washing machines for misrepresenting the energy efficiency of such washing machines.)
• Rodriguez v. CitiMortgage, Inc., Case No. 1:11-cv-04718-PGG-DCF (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (representing a proposed nationwide class of military personnel against CitiMortgage for illegal foreclosures.)
• In re: Shop-Vac Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, Case No. 4:12-md-02380-YK (M.D. Pa. 2012) (representing a proposed nationwide class of persons who purchased vacuums or shop vac’s with overstated horsepower and tank capacity specifications.)
• In re: Oreck Corporation Halo Vacuum And Air Purifiers Marketing And Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2317 (the firm was appointed to the executive committee, representing a proposed nationwide class of consumers who purchased vacuums and air purifiers that were deceptively advertised effective in eliminating common viruses, germs and allergens.)