Or so smokers and non-smokers alike believed that "low tars" or "lights" were as less hazardous alternative to full-flavor cigarettes.
Currently, there are three lights cases granted class certification, all in state courts and involving fewer numbers of smokers. Now came a September 2006 court ruling by Judge Jack Weinstein of Federal District Court in Brooklyn, New York that there is "substantial evidence" that the manufacturers knew that light cigarettes were at least as dangerous as the regular variety. And people who smoked ‘lights’ can push their fraud claim as a class-action lawsuit.
The University of Washington Medical Center accommodates about 20,000 patients a year for minor surgical procedures. It took one Heidi Rothmeyer of Seattle to notice that the reputable medical center tacked onto her bill a hospital "facility" fee when in fact the dermatology procedure done on her was performed in a doctor's office, an outpatient clinic.
On August 2006, the medical center has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit. No refunds are involved, instead UW agreed to reduce its charges for minor surgical procedures by 25 percent. Over the next year, the hospital will also set up a system allowing patients to be informed ahead of time about charges.
Two class action lawsuits contended that Visa, Mastercard and several other credit and debit card issuers overcharged when foreign transactions are converted into dollars and withheld to disclose all fees.
Credit cards companies typically charge up to 1% to 2% to convert foreign transactions into U.S. dollars, a policy that many consumers don't realize until the billing statements arrive.
On August 2006, the Houston Chronicle reported on a $336 million dollar settlement entered into by the credit and debit card issuers to resolve the case.
In 2003, a consumer class action lawsuit accuses AOL of regularly and deliberately double-billing hundreds of thousands of customers through a deceptive scheme involving multiple screen names by creating what it refers to as "spin-off sub accounts."
The suit explains the 'deceptive' tactic in that the spin-off accounts are created for subscribers who maintain multiple screen names intended to deter customers from finding out they are being billed for two separate accounts.
Allegedly, AOL charges subscribers' credit cards at the beginning of the month for one subscription fee and will then post a second subscription fee towards the end of the month.
As many of Vonage customers are suspected to have reneged on commitments to buy stock, the company could be forced to indemnify its IPO underwriters and potentially cost Vonage $70 million -- in a worst-case scenario, that is.
On June 2006, lawyers filed an investor class action suit against Vonage Holdings Corporation in New Jersey district court. The problem become apparent when the news came out that many Vonage customers who bought stock reserved for them in a customer stock program may have defaulted on paying for the shares.
Vonage, which reserves 14 percent of its IPO shares for its customers, gave its clients three days to settle up after they agreed to purchase stocks -- at $17 opening price; but within that three-day period, Vonage's stock price slipped to $12 so Vonage would cover that $5 gap, less an underwriting fee.
In April 2006, a total of 16 class action lawsuits were filed from across the country claiming that the Teflon used to coat cooking products is harmful.
At the center of the case is DuPont, the company that makes Teflon.
The suits are not claiming that anyone got sick as a result of Teflon. The plaintiffs' argument takes up on the active chemical in Teflon – particularly the chemical perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and its salts -- which has potential to cause illness. In animal tests, PFOA has been linked to cancer, reproductive problems, and developmental effects.
On July, two Florida law firms hinted on filing a similar class lawsuit with a $5 billion possible settlement payout, this time alleging that DuPont did not inform consumers of dangers of its nonstick coating Teflon.
Subject culprit: Benzene, a known carcinogen and is linked to leukemia.
On April 2006, class action lawsuits were filed in Massachusetts and Florida against two soft drink companies -- Polar Beverages, Inc. and In Zone Brands, Inc. -- over alleged benzene content in their products.
Allegedly, said soft drink makers are not properly ensuring that benzene wouldn't form in their sodas. To substantiate the claim, an independent study measured the benzene levels in soft drinks and found an over the federal drinking water limit amount in both companies' products.
Beverage manufacturers have been instructed to add ingredients that would prevent benzene from forming. The suit claims that the subject soft drink companies failed to follow such preventive procedure.
In March 2006, nine lawsuits were filed in California Superior Court in Los Angeles against makers of popular sunscreen brands Coppertone, Banana Boat, Hawaiian Tropic, Bullfrog and Neutrogena -- for allegedly advertising false and misleading claims about the effectiveness of their products, thereby impressing upon the consumers that they are safe from the dangers of prolonged sun exposure.
Plaintiffs' attorneys are seeking class-action status for suits against Johnson & Johnson Inc., Schering-Plough Corp., Playtex Products Inc., Tanning Research Laboratories Inc. and Chattem Inc.
The suits focus on labels that claim "waterproof," "all day," "UVA/UVB protection," and "sunblock" – marketing copies that are allegedly misleading. For one, the 1999 edition of FDA labeling rules have banned the use of "all day," "waterproof," saying they were unsupported and potentially misleading.
For scratching so easily, some irate iPod nano owners, sometime in October 2005, complained about the "easily bruised" model of the portable audio. Perhaps motivated by Apple's aggressive legal agenda, iPod nano users are following suit by taking the 'scratch' to the court through a class-action suit filed in San Jose, California.
It can be real itchy for Apple as the class suit seeks reimbursement for the cost of the iPod and legal fees. Moreover, the plaintiffs wanted a share of "illegal or unlawful profits" made by company through iPod nano sales.
In October 2005, a U.S. programmer discovered that XCP software on a Sony music CD had installed copy-restriction software on his computer that was hidden using a 'rootkit'. Later, antivirus companies found that another type of Sony DRM, MediaMax, also posed a security risk after discovering Trojan horses that exploited XCP to avoid detection.
The next month, a number of individuals filed cases against Sony at courts across United States, this despite the effort of the company to implement the CD recall scheme. In the settlement, Sony offered to replace XCP CDs with non-content-protected CDs. To “ensure that XCP CDs are promptly removed from the market,” Sony also agreed to grant incentives to U.S. customers.