Class Action Complaint

AT&T Slows Down High Data Plan Users

2012-02-13T07:44:00.000-08:00

Like other wireless companies, we're taking steps to manage exploding demand for mobile data. Many experts agree the country is facing a serious wireless spectrum crunch. We're responding on many levels, including investing billions in our wireless network this year and working to acquire additional network capacity. We're also taking additional, more immediate measures to help address network congestion.

One new measure is a step that may reduce the data throughput speed experienced by a very small minority of smartphone customers who are on unlimited plans - those whose extraordinary level of data usage puts them in the top 5 percent of our heaviest data users in a billing period. In fact, these customers on average use 12 times more data than the average of all other smartphone data customers. This step will not apply to our 15 million smartphone customers on a tiered data plan or the vast majority of smartphone customers who still have unlimited data plans.

Starting October 1, smartphone customers with unlimited data plans may experience reduced speeds once their usage in a billing cycle reaches the level that puts them among the top 5 percent of heaviest data users. These customers can still use unlimited data and their speeds will be restored with the start of the next billing cycle. Before you are affected, we will provide multiple notices, including a grace period.

This change will never impact the vast majority of our customers, and is designed to create a better service experience for all.

The amount of data usage of our top 5 percent of heaviest users varies from month to month, based on the usage of others and the ever-increasing demand for mobile broadband services. To rank among the top 5 percent, you have to use an extraordinary amount of data in a single billing period.

There will be no changes for the vast majority of customers. It's not how much time you spend using your device, it's what you do with it. You can send or receive thousands of emails, surf thousands of Web pages and watch hours of streaming video every month and not be in the top 5 percent of data users.

Typically what puts someone in the top 5 percent is streaming very large amounts of video and music daily over the wireless network, not Wi-Fi. Streaming video apps, remote web camera apps, sending large data files (like video) and some online gaming are examples of applications that can use data quickly. Using Wi-Fi doesn't create wireless network congestion or count toward your wireless data usage. AT&T smartphone customers have unlimited access to our entire Wi-Fi network, with more than 26,000 hotspots, at no additional cost. They can also use Wi-Fi at home and in the office.

The bottom line is our customers have options. They can choose to stay on their unlimited plans and use unlimited amounts of data, but may experience reduced speeds at some point if they are an extraordinarily heavy data user. If speed is more important, they may wish to switch to a tiered usage plan, where customers can pay for more data if they need it and will not see reduced speeds.

But even as we pursue this additional measure, it will not solve our spectrum shortage and network capacity issues. Nothing short of completing the T-Mobile merger will provide additional spectrum capacity to address these near term challenges.

Calling Cards That Did Not Provide Advertised Minutes Agree To Pay Settlement

2012-02-13T06:11:00.000-08:00

An operation that marketed prepaid calling cards to immigrants has agreed to pay $2.32 million as part of a settlement to resolve Federal Trade Commission charges that they made false claims to consumers about the number of minutes of talk time their prepaid calling cards would deliver.

The settlement is part of an ongoing FTC effort to address deceptive advertising and marketing practices in the prepaid calling card industry, which sells billions of dollars worth of cards a year, many of them to immigrants who depend on them to call friends and family in other countries. It resolves claims brought by the FTC against defendants Millennium Telecard, Inc.; Millenium Tele Card, LLC; Coleccion Latina, Inc.; Telecard Center USA, Inc.; and their principal Fadi Salim.

In May, 2011, the FTC filed a complaint in U.S. District Court in New Jersey, charging that the defendants targeted immigrants using calling cards with names such as "Africa Magic," "Hola Amigo," and "Viva Ecuador." According to the FTC complaint, the defendants' prepaid calling cards are sold directly to consumers over the Internet using their own websites. The cards also are sold at newsstands, grocery and convenience stores, and kiosks nationwide. In addition, the defendants own stores in New Jersey where they sell prepaid calling cards on a retail and wholesale basis.

The FTC complaint alleged that the defendants advertised the cards widely in a variety of ways, including point-of-sale posters and on the Internet. These ads made bold claims about the number of minutes calling cards provided to a wide range of international locations, including Argentina, Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Mexico, Pakistan, Poland, Vietnam, Ghana, Nigeria, and El Salvador. But the FTC alleged that consumers didn't receive the number of minutes advertised. In extensive testing of the defendants' cards conducted by the FTC between August 2010 and March 2011, the cards delivered an average of only 45% of the advertised minutes. Of the 141 cards tested, 139 – more than 98% – failed to deliver the number of minutes advertised on the point-of-sale posters.

The FTC also alleged the cards carried hidden fees, such as "hang-up fees" and weekly fees. The agency charged the fees could wipe out the value of the card after even one short call. Such fees were disclosed in tiny print and in vague terms that were hard to understand in any language.

In addition to paying $2.32 million, the defendants will be barred from misrepresenting the amount of time consumers will receive from prepaid calling cards, and required to clearly and prominently disclose any fees or charges. To ensure compliance, the settlement requires defendants to routinely monitor the advertising materials displayed by their distributors and the number of minutes of talk time their prepaid calling cards deliver to consumers.

The Commission vote to approve the proposed consent order was 4-0. It is subject to court approval. The FTC filed the proposed consent order in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

NOTE: This consent order is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the defendant that the law has been violated. Consent orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.

Everify, InfoPay, and Intelligator Warned by The FTC

2012-02-13T06:07:00.000-08:00

The Federal Trade Commission warned marketers of six mobile applications that provide background screening apps that they may be violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The FTC warned the apps marketers that, if they have reason to believe the background reports they provide are being used for employment screening, housing, credit, or other similar purposes, they must comply with the Act. The companies that received the letters are Everify, Inc., marketer of the Police Records app, InfoPay, Inc., marketer of the Criminal Pages app, and Intelligator, Inc., marketer of Background Checks, Criminal Records Search, Investigate and Locate Anyone, and People Search and Investigator apps.

According to the FTC, some of the apps include criminal record histories, which bear on an individual's character and general reputation and are precisely the type of information that is typically used in employment and tenant screening.

"If you have reason to believe that your background reports are being used for employment or other FCRA purposes, you and your customers who are using your reports for such purposes must comply with the FCRA," the letters say.

The FCRA is designed to protect the privacy of consumer report information and ensure that the information supplied by consumer reporting agencies is accurate. Consumer reports are communications that include information on an individual's character, reputation, or personal characteristics and are used or expected to be used for purposes such as employment, housing or credit.

Under the FCRA, operations that assemble or evaluate information to provide to third parties qualify as consumer reporting agencies, or CRAs. Mobile apps that supply such information may qualify as CRAs under the Act. CRAs must take reasonable steps to ensure the user of each report has a 'permissible purpose' to use the report; take reasonable steps to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of the information conveyed in its reports; and provide users of its reports with information about their obligations under the FCRA. In the case of consumer reports provided for employment purposes, for example, CRAs must provide employers with information regarding their obligation to provide notice to employees and applicants of any adverse action taken on the basis of a consumer report.

According to the letters, the agency has made no determination whether the companies are violating the FCRA, but encourages them to review their apps and their policies and procedures to be sure they comply with the FCRA.

BAC Home Loans Settlement With FTC

2012-02-11T14:04:00.000-08:00

A mortgage servicing subsidiary of Bank of America Corp. - BAC Home Loans agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it illegally assessed more than $36 million worth of fees against struggling homeowners, in violation of an earlier settlement with the FTC.

"It's clear to us that the Bank of America subsidiary violated the 2010 court order, and as a result, they will have to return all of the money they illegally charged homeowners who were already having trouble paying their mortgages," said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz.

Bank of America subsidiary BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP has already reversed or refunded $28 million worth of improper fees for title and other default-related services charged to homeowners behind on their mortgages. The new settlement requires BAC Home Loans to reverse or refund the remaining $8 million in improper fees.

BAC Home Loans, which did business as Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP before it was acquired by Bank of America in 2008, agreed to the FTC settlement in conjunction with a $25 billion, Global Civil Settlement that Bank of America and the four other largest U.S. banks reached with the U.S. Department of Justice and state attorneys general to resolve allegations of abusive foreclosure practices.

"Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli deserves enormous credit for leading this massive effort to benefit millions of current and future home owners, and for herding so many state and federal cats into the same agreement," said Chairman Leibowitz. "But this settlement won't be meaningful unless going forward, banks change their behavior and respect the rights of consumers. I am cautiously optimistic that this will be the case."

Mortgage servicers are responsible for the day-to-day management of homeowners' mortgage loans, including collecting and crediting monthly loan payments. Homeowners cannot choose their mortgage servicer. BAC Home Loans, which was merged into Bank of America in June 2011, is one of the nation's largest mortgage servicing companies.

As part of the Global Civil Settlement, the FTC will release all five banks, their subsidiaries, and employees from liability under the FTC Act for loan origination or servicing practices before the Global Settlement.

The FTC's new settlement with BAC Home Loans, part of the FTC's ongoing effort to protect financially distressed consumers, will give some homeowners additional compensation for improper default-related fees that is not included in the Global Civil Settlement.

It stems from an earlier FTC federal court action against Countrywide and its successor, BAC Home Loans, which was resolved with a settlement in June 2010. That settlement required the company to pay a record $108 million to reimburse homeowners whose loans were serviced by Countrywide before it was acquired by Bank of America in July 2008, and who allegedly were overcharged for services, including property inspections, maintenance services, title searches, and foreclosure trustee services. The 2010 settlement also prohibited BAC Home Loans from charging more than a reasonable fee for default-related services, and it required the company to clearly disclose default-related fees on its website.

As a result of the 2010 settlement, an administrator working for the FTC has already mailed 450,177 refund checks to consumers who were harmed by Countrywide's practices.

The FTC alleged that despite the 2010 settlement, BAC Home Loans charged many homeowners fees for default-related services that were illegal or not authorized under their loan documents. The agency also alleged that BAC Home Loans charged fees for title services that were much higher than the maximum $500 disclosed on the company's website. The FTC and BAC Home Loans will file a stipulated order resolving these new allegations, which includes a judgment against the company of $8 million.

To satisfy the $8 million judgment, BAC Home Loans must demonstrate that they have reversed or refunded all of the improperly assessed fees or must reverse or refund such charges within 180 days.

The Commission vote to authorize staff to file the proposed stipulated consent order and execute the bank liability releases was 4-0.

For more information about the case and the FTC's refund program, see www.ftc.gov/countrywide.

The Federal Trade Commission is a member of the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. For more information on the Task Force, visit www.stopfraud.gov.

NOTE: This stipulated order is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the defendants that the law has been violated. Stipulated orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC's online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC's Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

Facebook Privacy Settlement With The FTC

2012-02-11T14:00:00.000-08:00

The social networking service Facebook has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it deceived consumers by telling them they could keep their information on Facebook private, and then repeatedly allowing it to be shared and made public. The proposed settlement requires Facebook to take several steps to make sure it lives up to its promises in the future, including giving consumers clear and prominent notice and obtaining consumers' express consent before their information is shared beyond the privacy settings they have established.

The FTC's eight-count complaint against Facebook is part of the agency's ongoing effort to make sure companies live up to the privacy promises they make to American consumers. It charges that the claims that Facebook made were unfair and deceptive, and violated federal law.

"Facebook is obligated to keep the promises about privacy that it makes to its hundreds of millions of users," said Jon Leibowitz, Chairman of the FTC. "Facebook's innovation does not have to come at the expense of consumer privacy. The FTC action will ensure it will not."

The FTC complaint lists a number of instances in which Facebook allegedly made promises that it did not keep:

In December 2009, Facebook changed its website so certain information that users may have designated as private – such as their Friends List – was made public. They didn't warn users that this change was coming, or get their approval in advance. Facebook represented that third-party apps that users' installed would have access only to user information that they needed to operate. In fact, the apps could access nearly all of users' personal data – data the apps didn't need. Facebook told users they could restrict sharing of data to limited audiences – for example with "Friends Only." In fact, selecting "Friends Only" did not prevent their information from being shared with third-party applications their friends used. Facebook had a "Verified Apps" program & claimed it certified the security of participating apps. It didn't. Facebook promised users that it would not share their personal information with advertisers. It did. Facebook claimed that when users deactivated or deleted their accounts, their photos and videos would be inaccessible. But Facebook allowed access to the content, even after users had deactivated or deleted their accounts. Facebook claimed that it complied with the U.S.- EU Safe Harbor Framework that governs data transfer between the U.S. and the European Union. It didn't. The proposed settlement bars Facebook from making any further deceptive privacy claims, requires that the company get consumers' approval before it changes the way it shares their data, and requires that it obtain periodic assessments of its privacy practices by independent, third-party auditors for the next 20 years.

Specifically, under the proposed settlement, Facebook is:

barred from making misrepresentations about the privacy or security of consumers' personal information; required to obtain consumers' affirmative express consent before enacting changes that override their privacy preferences; required to prevent anyone from accessing a user's material more than 30 days after the user has deleted his or her account; required to establish and maintain a comprehensive privacy program designed to address privacy risks associated with the development and management of new and existing products and services, and to protect the privacy and confidentiality of consumers' information; and

required, within 180 days, and every two years after that for the next 20 years, to obtain independent, third-party audits certifying that it has a privacy program in place that meets or exceeds the requirements of the FTC order, and to ensure that the privacy of consumers' information is protected. The proposed order also contains standard record-keeping provisions to allow the FTC to monitor compliance with its order.

Facebook's privacy practices were the subject of complaints filed with the FTC by the Electronic Privacy Information Center and a coalition of consumer groups.

The Commission vote to accept the consent agreement package containing the proposed consent order for public comment was 4-0. The FTC will publish a description of the consent agreement package in the Federal Register shortly. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days, beginning today and continuing through December 30, 2011 after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final. Interested parties can submit comments online or in paper form by following the instructions in the "Invitation To Comment" part of the "Supplementary Information" section. Comments in paper form should be mailed or delivered to: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex D), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form near the end of the public comment period be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions.

NOTE: The Commission issues an administrative complaint when it has "reason to believe" that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the respondent has actually violated the law. A consent agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the respondent that the law has been violated. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $16,000.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC's online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC's website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

Do Not Call Registry Released by FTC

2012-02-11T13:46:00.002-08:00

The Federal Trade Commission today issued the National Do Not Call Registry Data Book for Fiscal Year 2011. The FTC's National Do Not Call Registry provides consumers with an easy way to stop unwanted telemarketing calls. In its third year of publication, the Data Book contains a wealth of information about the Registry for FY 2011, including:

The number of active registrations and consumer complaint figures since the Registry began in 2003;

FY 2011 complaint figures by month and complaint type; FY 2011 registration and complaint figures for all 50 states and the District of Columbia by population; The number of entities accessing the Registry by fiscal year; and An appendix on registration and complaint data by consumer state and area code. According to the Data Book, at the end of FY 2011 (September 30, 2011), the Do Not Call Registry contained 209,722,924 actively registered phone numbers, up from 201,542,535 at the end of FY 2010. In addition, the number of consumer complaints about unwanted telemarketing calls increased from 1,633,819 at the end of FY 2010 to 2,272,662 at the end of FY 2011.

This year's Data Book also reveals trends in complaint data. In addition to providing information on the total number of consumer complaints per month, it also contains data on the number of monthly complaints specifically related to pre-recorded telemarketing "robocalls," and requests for a telemarketer to stop calling.

While the number of consumer complaints about recorded messages used in telemarketing hit a low of 79,592 in April 2011, for example, the data show that the number of complaints about such calls have increased consistently since then, reaching 140,503 in September 2011. Most telemarketing robocalls have been illegal since September 2009. The FTC remains committed to stopping deceptive, misleading, and otherwise unlawful robocalls, and will take action against entities violating the agency's Telemarketing Sales Rule.

Information for consumers about the Do Not Call Registry, company-specific do not call requests, and telemarketer Caller ID requirements can be found here and here on the FTC's website, and consumers can sign up for the National Registry for free here.

FTC Warns Consumers About Scammers Claiming to be Calling From the Do Not Call Registry

The Federal Trade Commission wants consumers to know that scammers recently have been making phone calls claiming to represent the National Do Not Call Registry. The callers offer to provide an opportunity to sign up for the Registry. These calls are not coming from the Registry or the FTC, however, and consumers should not respond to them.

To add a number to the Registry for free at any time, consumers can call toll-free 1-888-382-1222 from the phone they wish to register, or go to www.donotcall.gov to sign up.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC's online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC's website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

Circle Cosmetic Contact Lenses Settlement With FTC

2012-02-11T13:44:00.002-08:00

Three Internet marketers of cosmetic, "circle" contact lenses have agreed to resolve Federal Trade Commission charges by entering into settlements that will put a stop to their alleged illegal practice of selling lenses to consumers without prescriptions. Circle lenses are a type of decorative contact lens that covers not just the iris of the eye, as standard lenses do, but the white area as well. Wearing these lenses makes the eyes appear larger.

The settlements are part of the FTC's ongoing efforts to help protect consumers from the health risks posed by improperly used contact lenses, through enforcement of the FTC's Contact Lens Rule. The Rule requires sellers to verify that a consumer has a valid prescription for all contact lenses, including cosmetic lenses that do not correct vision. According to the Food and Drug Administration, the improper use of contact lenses, whether they are corrective or not, can cause corneal ulcers, corneal abrasions, vision impairment, and blindness.

The three settlements with Royal Tronics, Inc. and Jamil Hindi; Gene Kim; and Thy Xuan Ho bring the FTC's total number of contact lens enforcement actions to 10 since the agency issued the Contact Lens Rule in 2004.

According to the FTC, Jamil Hindi sold prescription contacts and circle cosmetic contact lenses through his Florida-based company, Royal Tronics, Inc. on the website www.mycandyeyes.com. New York-based Gene Kim, sold circle contact lenses on his website buyexclusive.net; and Minnesota-based Thy Xuan Ho, also known as Brandon Lee, sold the lenses on the website mycutelens. The FTC charged that all of the defendants violated federal law by selling contact lenses without getting consumers' contact lens prescriptions or verifying their prescriptions directly with the prescribers, and by failing to keep adequate records.

The settlement orders prohibit the defendants from selling contact lenses without obtaining a prescription from a consumer, or verifying prescriptions by communicating directly with a prescriber, from failing to maintain records of prescriptions and verifications, and from violating the Contact Lens Rule.

The settlement with Jamil Hindi and Royal imposes a $68,000 civil penalty, which will be suspended upon payment of $20,000. The other settlements impose civil penalties of $24,000 on Gene Kim and $5,400 on Thy Xuan Ho, both of which are suspended because of their inability to pay.

In each case, if it is later determined that the financial information the defendants provided the FTC was false, the full amount of their civil penalties will become due. The settlements also contain various record keeping provisions to assist the FTC in monitoring the defendants' compliance.

The FTC's guidance to sellers on their obligations under the Contact Lens Rule includes "The Contact Lens Rule: A Guide for Prescribers and Sellers," and "Complying with the Contact Lens Rule." Consumers can learn more about cosmetic contact lenses in "Avoiding an Eyesore: What to Know Before You Buy Cosmetic Contacts," and about their rights under federal law in "The Eyes Have It – Get Your Prescription."

The Commission votes to approve the proposed consent decrees were 5-0. The U.S. Department of Justice filed the proposed consent decrees on behalf of the Commission on November 22, 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, (Royal Tronics, Inc., and Jamil Hindi doing business as MyCandyEyes), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, (Gene Kim, doing business as BuyExclusive), and the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (Thy Xuan Ho doing business as MyCuteLens.) The proposed consent decrees are subject to court approval.

NOTE: The Commission refers complaints to the DOJ for filing when it has "reason to believe" that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaints are not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law. Consent decrees are for settlement purposes only and do not constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Consent decrees are subject to court approval and have the force of law when signed by the judge.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC's online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC's website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky - Class Action Attorneys

2012-02-11T10:41:00.001-08:00

Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky Class Action Attorneys
180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, California 94104
Phone Number: 1-415-421-7100
800 Number: 1-800-689-0024
Fax Number: 1-415-421-7105 TTY: 1-415-421-1655
Email: info@schneiderwallace.com

Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky Houston, Texas Office
3700 Buffalo Speedway
Houston, Texas 77098
Phone Number: 1-713-338-2560
Fax Number: 1-866-505-8036
Email: info@schneiderwallace.com

Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky
Arizona Office
501 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 270
Scottsdale, Arizona 85253
Phone Number: 1-480-428-0144
Fax Number: 1-866-505-8036
Email: info@schneiderwallace.com

LegalZoom Class Action Settlement

2012-02-02T05:00:00.000-08:00

IF YOU PURCHASED A LEGAL DOCUMENT OR LEGAL DOCUMENT ASSISTANT SERVICE FROM LEGALZOOM.COM YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO BENEFITS FROM THIS CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT.

YOU SHOULD READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. IT AFFECTS YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS.
A proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit, Webster v. LegalZoom.com, Inc. Case No. BC438637 (“lawsuit”), pending in the Superior Court of the State of California for The County of Los Angeles (“Court”). The lawsuit claims that LegalZoom.com (“LegalZoom”) made misleading advertising statements and over-promised the services that LegalZoom would provide. It also claims that LegalZoom failed to comply with the California Legal Document Assistant Act. LegalZoom continues to deny it did anything wrong. THERE ARE NO CLAIMS OR ASSERTIONS IN THIS CASE ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF ANY LEGALZOOM DOCUMENT OR SERVICE.

Am I a Class Member? You are Class Member if you purchased a legal document or legal document assistant service from LegalZoom from 9/15/2005 through 6/16/2011.

What Does the Settlement Provide? If the Court approves the Settlement, you may be eligible to receive 60 days of free enrollment in LegalZoom’s Legal Advantage Plus or Business Advantage Pro program ("the Programs"). These Programs include the opportunity to consult by telephone with an attorney in your state for free on matters of your choosing (including the document you prepared using LegalZoom) plus other benefits. These Programs are described in detail in the full Settlement Notice. Instead of free enrollment in the Programs, Class Members who previously requested but did not receive a refund from LegalZoom may be eligible to claim up to $100. You must submit a Valid Claim. This is only a brief summary of the benefits. For complete details, and information on submitting a claim, please visit www.LDALitigation.com, call 1-888-928-8088, or write to the address below.

What are my rights and options in this Settlement?

Stay in and submit a claim. In order to receive the economic benefits, you must stay in the Class in this lawsuit and submit a valid Claim Form online at www.LDALitigation.com by May 15, 2012. By staying in the Class, you will not be able to sue or be part of any other lawsuit against LegalZoom about the legal issues in this case. You will be bound by the Court’s decisions.

Exclude yourself. You will keep your right to sue LegalZoom on your own, by sending a written Request for Exclusion to the Settlement Administrator at the address below so that it is received by March 1, 2012. If you do not exclude yourself, you will be bound by the terms of the Settlement and give up your rights to sue regarding the Settled Claims. If you do not exclude yourself, you or your lawyer have the right to appear before the Court and comment on the proposed Settlement. If you choose to appear through an attorney, you are responsible for paying that attorney.

Comment. Write to the Court about why you do, or do not, like the Settlement so that it is received by March 1, 2012. You must remain in the class to comment in support of or in opposition to the Settlement. For complete details on how to Exclude or Comment, visit www.LDALitigation.com.

Do Nothing. You will get no economic benefits and give up rights to sue.

More info? To obtain a copy of the Full Notice which contains details for requesting exclusion, commenting, attending the Fairness Hearing on April 5, 2012 at 1:30 p.m., and your options and obligations; to obtain a copy of the Settlement Agreement; or for more information on submitting a claim, please visit www.LDALitigation.com or write the Settlement Administrator at:

Webster v. LegalZoom Settlement Administrator
c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
P.O. Box 9764
Dublin OH, 43017-5663

Zappos Lawsuit Filed Over Personal Information

2012-01-24T05:37:00.000-08:00

Zappos.com and Amazon are being sued by a Kentucky woman. The woman alleges that Zappos and Amazon did not protect her personal information.

The woman's attorney is seeking class action status for the case in the U.S. District Court.

Ticketmaster Class Action Settlement Proposed

2011-12-14T07:22:00.000-08:00

Hoodia Weight Loss Settlement with FTC

2011-11-16T10:01:00.001-08:00

As part of its ongoing efforts to stop bogus health claims, the Federal Trade Commission settled charges brought against three people and two companies for deceptively advertising a supposed weight-loss supplement ingredient. One defendant is banned from making any weight-loss claims related to foods, drugs, or dietary supplements and must turn over a vacation home and other assets to the FTC; another is banned from the dietary supplement business; and all defendants are barred from making any more deceptive claims. The marketers were part of a scheme that supplied manufacturers of weight-loss supplements with a substance they claimed was a derivative of the plant Hoodia gordonii (“hoodia”), which is native to southern Africa. Under the settlements: David J. Romeo, and two companies he controlled, Nutraceuticals International LLC and Stella Labs LLC, are banned from making any weight-loss claims while marketing foods, drugs, and dietary supplements. The settlement imposes a $22.5 million judgment against Romeo and the two companies, which will be suspended when Romeo forfeits his vacation home in Vermont, and assigns to the FTC the right to collect on $635,000 in business loans owed to him. If it is later determined that the financial information Romeo gave the FTC was false, the full amount of the judgment will become due. Nutraceuticals International principal Craig Payton is banned from marketing any foods, drugs, or dietary supplements. The order against Payton does not require him to forfeit any assets, as they were already seized in an unrelated federal drug case. Nutraceuticals International marketing executive Deborah B. Vickery is required to pay a $4 million judgment, which has been suspended due to her inability to pay. If it is later determined that the financial information she gave the FTC was false, the full amount of the judgment will become due. All five defendants are prohibited from making any false or unsupported claims about foods, drugs, or dietary supplements, and from helping others to make these claims. They also are barred from misrepresenting the results of any scientific study. In its 2009 complaint, the FTC alleged that the defendants made false and deceptive claims about hoodia and its effectiveness as a treatment for obesity, and falsely claimed that their ingredient was hoodia when it was not. The complaint also alleged that the defendants falsely and deceptively claimed their product would enable consumers to lose weight and suppress appetites; was scientifically proven to suppress appetite, resulting in weight loss; and was clinically proven to reduce caloric intake by 1,000 to 2,000 calories per day. The defendants also provided deceptive advertising and promotional materials to trade customers, who then had the means to deceive consumers that bought the purported weight-loss products. The FTC dropped its charge against a fourth individual, Zoltan Klivinyi, who served as an officer of Nutraceuticals International, but is no longer residing in the United States. The FTC has more information on this topic for consumers. See Weighing the Evidence in Diet Ads. The Commission votes authorizing the staff to file the stipulated orders were 5-0. The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey entered the orders against Craig Payton and Deborah B. Vickery on August 2, 2010. The court entered the order against David J. Romeo, Nutraceuticals International LLC, and Stella Labs LLC on October 27, 2011. NOTE: A consent decrees is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the defendant that the law has been violated. Consent decrees have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.

SkideKids Settlement With FTC

2011-11-16T09:50:00.001-08:00

The operator of www.skidekids.com, a website that advertises itself as the “Facebook and Myspace for Kids,” has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that he collected personally information from approximately 5,600 children without obtaining prior parental consent, in violation of the Commission’s Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”) Rule. The FTC’s complaint also charges the operator, Jones O. Godwin, with making deceptive claims in Skid-e-kids’ privacy policy about the site’s information collection practices. The proposed settlement will bar future violations of COPPA and misrepresentations about the collection, use and disclosure of children’s information. The FTC’s COPPA Rule requires that website operators notify parents and obtain their consent before they collect, use or disclose personal information from children under 13. The Rule also requires that website operators post a privacy policy that is clear, understandable and complete. According to the FTC, Skid-e-kids is a social networking site targeted at children ages 7-14 that allows them to register, create and update profile information, create public posts, upload pictures and videos, and “friend” and send messages to other Skid-e-kids members. The FTC alleges that the Skid-e-kids’ online privacy policy claimed that the site “requires child users to provide a parent’s valid email address in order to register on the website. We use this information to send the parent a message that can be used to activate the Skid-e-kids account, to notify the parent about our privacy practices, to send the parent communications either about the parent’s and child’s Skid-e-kids accounts or about features of our Web site . . .” The complaint alleges that the defendant registered children on the website without collecting a parent’s email address or obtaining permission for their children to participate. Children who registered were able to provide personal information, including their date of birth, email address, first and last name, and city. In addition to violating the COPPA Rule by collecting kids’ personal information without parental permission, the FTC alleged that the Skid-e-kids’ false privacy policy claims violated the FTC Act. In addition to barring future violations of COPPA and misrepresentations about the collection and use of children’s information, the settlement order also requires Godwin to destroy information he collected from children in violation of the Rule, and, for a period of time, link to online educational material and retain an online privacy professional or join a Commission-approved safe harbor program to oversee any COPPA-covered website he may run. Finally, the proposed order imposes a $100,000 civil penalty, all but $1,000 of which will be suspended if Godwin provided truthful information about his financial condition and complies with the order’s oversight provision. The FTC has a new publication, Living Life Online, to help tweens and teens navigate the Net safely. The Commission vote to authorize the staff to refer the complaint to the Department of Justice was 5-0. The vote to approve the proposed consent decree, was 4-1, with Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch dissenting. The DOJ filed the complaint and proposed consent decree on behalf of the Commission in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on November 8, 2011. The proposed consent decree is subject to court approval. NOTE: The Commission authorizes the filing of a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law. This consent decree is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Consent decrees have the force of law when signed by the District Court judge. The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC's online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC's website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

MagSafe Power Adapter Settlement

2011-11-11T13:56:00.000-08:00

If you are the original owner of certain MacBook or MacBook Pro computers and/or you purchased a standalone 60W or 85W MagSafe power adapter for these computers, you could be entitled to benefits under a class action settlement The settlement will provide a cash payment if you are the original owner (by purchase or gift) of certain Apple MacBook or MacBook Pro computer models (“Subject Computer”) or separately purchased an Apple 60W or 85W MagSafe “T” Power Adapter (“Adapter”), your Adapter showed signs of Strain Relief Damage, and you purchased an Adapter as a replacement (“Replacement Adapter”) within three years of purchasing the Subject Computer or Adapter. You may also be able to obtain a replacement adapter at no charge from Apple if your Adapter shows signs of Strain Relief Damage now or in the future. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California authorized this notice. The Court will have a hearing to consider whether to approve the settlement, so that the benefits may be paid. WHO’S AFFECTED? You’re a “Class Member” if you are a United States resident who purchased in the United States an Apple MacBook or MacBook Pro computer or an Apple 60W or 85W MagSafe MPM-1 (“T”) Power Adapter. WHAT’S THIS ABOUT? The lawsuit claimed that the MagSafe “T” Adapter is defective in that it allegedly “dangerously frays, sparks and prematurely fails to work,” and that Apple engaged in misrepresentations regarding the Adapter. Apple denies all allegations and has asserted many defenses. Apple is entering into this settlement to avoid burdensome and costly litigation. The settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing. WHAT CAN YOU GET FROM THE SETTLEMENT? Apple has agreed to provide a cash payment to Class Members who purchased a Replacement Adapter for a Subject Computer or Adapter covered by the settlement and who send in a valid claim form. The settlement provides for different cash payments depending on when you purchased a Replacement Adapter. YEAR REPLACEMENT ADAPTER PURCHASED CASH PAYMENT AMOUNT YEAR 1 THE ACTUAL AMOUNT PAID FOR THE REPLACEMENT ADAPTER (EXCLUDING TAX & SHIPPING) UP TO $79 YEAR 2 $50 YEAR 3 $35 There is a limit of three refunds per Subject Computer. You may also be able to obtain a replacement adapter at no charge from Apple if your Adapter shows signs of Strain Relief Damage now or in the future. HOW DO YOU GET A PAYMENT? A detailed notice and claim form package contains everything you need. Just call 1-888-332-0277 or go to www.AdapterSettlement.com to get one. HOW DO YOU GET A REPLACEMENT ADAPTER? If your Adapter shows signs of Strain Relief Damage now or in the future, you may claim a replacement under Apple’s Adapter Replacement Program by taking your Adapter and computer to an Apple Retail Store or Apple Authorized Service Provider or contacting AppleCare. Strain Relief Damage means fraying, melting, straining, sparking, weakening, discoloration, bubbling, overheating and/or separation of the Adapter’s strain reliefs. IMPORTANT DEADLINES To claim a cash payment, you must mail the claim form postmarked on or before March 21, 2012. To obtain a Replacement Adapter, you must contact Apple within three years from the date you purchased a Subject Computer or standalone Adapter, or May 21, 2012, whichever is later; no claim form is required. If you do not claim a cash payment or Replacement Adapter within these time periods, you will lose your right to obtain these benefits. WHAT ARE YOUR OPTIONS? If you don’t want to make a claim and you don’t want to be legally bound by the settlement, you must postmark your request to exclude yourself by January 6, 2012, or you won’t be able to sue, or continue to sue, Apple about the legal claims in this case. If you exclude yourself, you will not be eligible to receive a payment from this settlement. If you stay in the Class, you may object to the settlement. Objections must be received by January 6, 2012. The detailed notice describes how to exclude yourself or object. The Court will hold a hearing in this case (In re MagSafe Power Adapter Litigation, Case No. C09-01911-JW) on February 27, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. to consider whether to approve (1) the settlement and (2) attorneys’ fees and expenses of up to $3.1 million and service payments to Plaintiffs of $5,000 each (not to exceed $30,000). You may appear at the hearing, but you don’t have to. To obtain a full notice and claim form, go to www.AdapterSettlement.com or call toll free 1-888-332-0277. For more details, go to www.AdapterSettlement.com or contact Helen Zeldes, Esq., Zeldes & Haeggquist, LLP, 625 Broadway, Suite 906, San Diego, CA 92101, 619-342-8000 or contact Steven A. Skalet, Esq., Mehri & Skalet, PLLC, 1250 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20036, 202-822-5100.

Reebok Class Action

2011-11-02T08:18:00.000-07:00

Settlement Order Prohibits Reebok from Making Unsupported Claims that ‘Toning Shoes’ Strengthen, Tone Muscles In its ongoing effort to stem overhyped advertising claims, the Federal Trade Commission announced that Reebok International Ltd. has agreed to resolve charges that the company deceptively advertised “toning shoes,” which it claimed would provide extra tone and strength to leg and buttock muscles. Reebok will pay $25 million as part of the settlement agreement. The funds will be made available for consumer refunds either directly from the FTC or through a court-approved class action lawsuit. Consumers who bought Reebok toning shoes or toning apparel can submit a claim here.

“The FTC wants national advertisers to understand that they must exercise some responsibility and ensure that their claims for fitness gear are supported by sound science,” said David Vladeck, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.

Consumers should carefully evaluate advertising claims for work-out gear and exercise equipment. For more information see: How's that Work-out Working Out? Tips on Buying Fitness Gear.

Reebok’s EasyTone walking shoes and RunTone running shoes have retailed for $80 to $100 a pair, while EasyTone flip flops have retailed for about $60 a pair. Ads for the shoes claimed that sole technology featuring pockets of moving air creates “micro instability” that tones and strengthens muscles as you walk or run.

According to the FTC complaint, Reebok made unsupported claims in advertisements that walking in its EasyTone shoes and running in its RunTone running shoes strengthen and tone key leg and buttock (gluteus maximus) muscles more than regular shoes. The FTC’s complaint also alleges that Reebok falsely claimed that walking in EasyTone footwear had been proven to lead to 28 percent more strength and tone in the buttock muscles, 11 percent more strength and tone in the hamstring muscles, and 11 percent more strength and tone in the calf muscles than regular walking shoes.

Beginning in early 2009, Reebok made its claims through print, television, and Internet advertisements, the FTC alleged. The claims also appeared on shoe boxes and displays in retail stores. One television ad featured a very fit woman explaining to an audience the benefits of Reebok EasyTone toning shoes. She picks up a shoe from a display and points to a chart showing the muscles that benefit from use of the shoes, while a video camera continues to focus on her buttocks. She says the shoes are proven to strengthen hamstrings and calves by up to 11 percent, and that they tone the buttocks “up to 28 percent more than regular sneakers, just by walking.”

Under the settlement, Reebok is barred from:

making claims that toning shoes and other toning apparel are effective in strengthening muscles, or that using the footwear will result in a specific percentage or amount of muscle toning or strengthening, unless the claims are true and backed by scientific evidence; making any health or fitness-related efficacy claims for toning shoes and other toning apparel unless the claims are true and backed by scientific evidence; and misrepresenting any tests, studies, or research results regarding toning shoes and other toning apparel. Ftc.gov/reebok gives consumers the basic facts about the Reebok settlement and directs them to apply for a refund if they are eligible. The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint and approving the proposed consent decree was 5-0. The FTC filed the complaint and proposed consent decree in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on September 28, 2011. The proposed consent decree is subject to court approval.

Yelp Lawsuit Charges Extortion and Fake Reviews

2011-02-07T07:56:00.000-08:00

More businesses are joining in a federal class action lawsuit against Yelp. They are accusing Yelp.com of extortion and fraudulent business practices.

The law firms involved are Weston Firm San Diego, California; Beck and Lee Miami, Florida.

“Yelp’s practices are extortionate and especially harmful to small businesses, such as our clients, who are particularly vulnerable to reviews posted on the site,” said Jared H. Beck, co-managing partner of Beck & Lee, referring to the original plaintiff and the nine new ones.

Nine local businesses have joined a lawsuit accusing local business review website, Yelp of extortion and fraudulent business practices.

Yelp denied the charges and stated that they reviewed the amended complaint and still believes the suit is without merit. “The allegations stem from confusion over how our review filter works to protect consumers from fake, or shill, reviews and businesses from malicious reviews from competitors,” said Vince Sollitto, Yelp’s vice president of communications.

After the original lawsuit, Yelp chief executive Jeremy Stoppelman responded on the company’s official blog: “There has been a long history of people accusing Yelp of monkeying around with reviews in exchange for money. The allegations are disappointing, not only because they are false, but because they ignore empirical evidence in favor of conspiracy theories.”

AT&T Class Action Fake Data Charges on iPhone

2011-02-07T06:55:00.000-08:00

AT&T Mobility faces a federal class action involving its iPhone and iPad data services. The Lawsuit claims that "AT&T's bills systematically overstate the amount of data used on each data transaction involving an iPhone or iPad account," and bills customers for data transactions even if they disable their phones and leave them untouched - as the plaintiff's experts did.
The class says AT&T's billing system "is like a rigged gas tank that charges pump that charges for a full gallon when it pumps only nine-tenths of a gallon into your car's tank."
AT&T has faced a welter of class actions since rolling out its iPhone service with Apple, which is not named as a party to this complaint. Previous class actions have claimed AT&T charged for downloads its customers never made, reneged on its billing plans for iPhones, charged for services it could not or did not deliver, and promised but failed that the phones could send text messages and photos.
In the new complaint, named plaintiff Patrick Hendricks claims that AT&T's overbilling "was discovered by an independent consulting firm retained by plaintiff's counsel, which conducted a two-month study of AT&T's billion practices for data usage, and found that AT&T systematically overstate web server traffic by 7 percent to 14 percent, and in some instances by over 300 percent. So, for example, if an iPhone user downloads a 50 KB website, AT&T's bill would typically overstated the traffic as 53.5 KB (a 7 percent overcharge) to as high as 150 KB (a 300 percent overcharge)." (Parentheses in complaint.)
But wait, Hendrick's claim continues: "It gets worse. Not only does AT&T systematically overbill for every data transaction, it also bills for phantom data traffic when there is no actual data usage initiated by the customer. This was discovered by the same independent consulting firm, which purchased an iPhone from an AT&T store, immediately disabled all push notifications and location services, confirmed that no email account was configured on the phone, closed all applications, and let the phone sit untouched for 10 days. During this 10-day period, AT&T billed the test account for 35 data transactions totaling 2,292 KB of usage. This is like the rigged gas pump charging you when you never even pulled your car into the station."
The class claims that though AT&T's overcharges "have a modest effect on an individual customer's bill, they have a huge effect on AT&T's bottom line. AT&T has 92,8 million customers. In the fourth quarter of 2010, AT&T reported its wireless data revenues increased $1.1 billion, or 27.4 percent, from the year-earlier quarter, to $4.9 billion. A significant portion of those data revenues were inflated by AT&T's rigged billing system for data transactions."
Hendricks seeks restitution and class damages for money had and received, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, unfair and fraudulent business practices, unfair competition, and violations of the federal Communications Act. He is represented by L. Timothy Fisher with Bursor & Fisher of Walnut Creek.

Taco Bell Meat Lawsuit - Think Outside The Beef

2011-01-25T12:25:00.000-08:00

Alabama law firm Beasley Allen filed targeting fast food giant Taco Bell. The lawsuit claims the company uses "false advertising" on its menu and in its advertisements.

"The complaint alleges that what Taco Bell calls "beef" doesn't meet the minimum requirements set by the USDA to be called "beef" or "seasoned ground beef" or anything of the kind.

"Rather than beef, these food items are actually made with a substance known as "taco meat filling," according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit states that Taco Bell should refer to its product as "taco meat filling" because it contains mostly "extenders" and other non-meat substances.

What are these substances? The document lists water, "Isolated Oat Product," wheat oats, soy lecithin, maltodrextrin, anti-dusting agent, autolyzed yeast extract, modified corn starch and sodium phosphate as well as beef and seasonings.

The USDA defines "beef" as "flesh of cattle."

The definition as read in the lawsuit states "Ground beef" "shall consist of chopped fresh and/or frozen beef with or without seasoning and without the addition of beef fat as such, shall not contain more than 30 percent fat, and shall not contain added water, phosphates, binders, or extenders."

The USDA policy book requires food labeled as "taco filling" to contain "at least 40 percent fresh meat," and the label must show the true product name.

In containers shipped to Taco Bell stores, not seen by consumers, the label reads: "Taco Meat Filling."

Beasley Allen law firm adds that what Taco Bell is marketing as beef only contains 36% meat.

Taco Bell's Response is below:

"Taco Bell prides itself on serving high quality Mexican inspired food with great value. We're happy that the millions of customers we serve every week agree. We deny our advertising is misleading in any way and we intend to vigorously defend the suit.