Skip to content
May 6, 2014 / Scott Tillett

California Court Certifies Consumer Class Action Against Twinings Tea for Labeling Violations

Twinings-tea

On April 24, 2014, a California federal court certified a consumer class action against Twinings North America Inc., makers of Twinings tea products. Plaintiff, Nancy Lanovaz filed the class action in 2012 claiming that Twinings falsely advertised the health benefits of antioxidants in its teas.

According to the complaint, Twinings violated FDA regulations against nutrient content claims about flavanoids, a type of antioxidant, because the FDA has not established a recommended daily intake for flavanoids. The FDA has published industry guidelines for food labeling, which state:

“Can I make an antioxidant nutrient content claim for any ingredient in a food? No. An antioxidant nutrient content claim can only be made for nutrients for which there is an RDI established in 21 CFR 101.9 (21 CFR 101.54(g)(1)).”

The complaint cites an FDA warning letter sent to Unilever, the maker of Lipton teas, for similar claims of antioxidant content on its tea labels. The warning letter sparked a class action against Unilever for misbranding and misleading labeling practices, including claims that flavanoids in Lipton teas are “generally associated with helping maintain normal, healthy heart function,” and “may help maintain healthy vascular function.”

Lanovaz’s complaint sought monetary and injunctive relief against Twinings on behalf of California “All persons in the State of California who, since May 23, 2008, purchased Defendant’s green, black and white tea products,” for alleged violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. However, the court limited the remedies available to injunctive relief, holding that Lanovaz was unable to demonstrate that consumers paid more money for Twinings’ tea products than they would have absent the allegedly misleading statements. This means that Twinings may be required to change its product labels, but will not be required to refund or reimburse consumers for tea purchases.

If you or someone you know has purchased a falsely advertised or mislabeled product, you may be entitled to relief. Please call Khorrami Boucher, LLP for a confidential consultation.

April 29, 2014 / Scott Tillett

US Supreme Court Food Labeling Decision May Aid California Consumer Protection Class Actions

category_enhancedHero

On April 21, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court heard an argument in POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co. The lawsuit by POM Wonderful alleges Coca-Cola mislabeled its Minute Maid Pomegranate Blueberry juice blend, engaging in unfair competition. POM argued that Coca-Cola had violated the Lanham Act by labeling its product “Pomegranate Blueberry,” despite the product consisting of approximately 99% apple and grape juice, and only 0.3% pomegranate juice and 0.2% blueberry juice.

POM argued that consumers were likely to be deceived by Coca-Cola’s labels, which prominently read “Pomegranate Blueberry,” stating “Flavored Blend of 5 juices” in much smaller font. POM contends that consumers will purchase the less expensive of the two products if they believed they are the same, as Coca-Cola’s labeling suggests. This seems like a fairly straight-forward argument, but both the California federal court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Coca-Cola product’s name and labeling complied with FDA regulations designed to prevent deceptive labeling and that POM’s claims under the Lanham Act may not “usurp, preempt or undermine FDA authority.”

The U.S. Supreme Court did not agree. The Supreme Court has not issued its ruling yet, but according to  SCOTUSblog, we can expect a unanimous reversal of the Ninth Circuit ruling. Apparently, Justice Kennedy slammed Coca-Cola’s arguments that federal labeling laws were designed to promote uniformity, protecting companies like Coca-Cola from unfair competition laws, even for product “labels that cheat the consumers like this one did.” Justice Kennedy went on to say “I think it’s relevant for us to ask whether people are cheated in buying the product. Because Coca-Cola’s position is to say even if they are, there’s nothing we can do about it.” Chief Justice Roberts seemed to agree, stating a “label that fully complies with the FDA regulations” could also be “misleading on the entirely different question of commercial competition… that has nothing to do with health.”

While this lawsuit focuses on competing federal statutes, the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act and the Lanham Act, the outcome will doubtless affect consumer protection class actions brought under State law as California’s consumer protection statutes contain prohibitions similar to the “likelihood of confusion” language contained in the Lanham Act.

If you or someone you know has purchased a falsely advertised or mislabeled product, you may be entitled to relief. Please call Khorrami Boucher, LLP for a confidential consultation.

April 24, 2014 / Scott Tillett

Pesticides Found in Celestial Seasoning “100% Natural” Teas

Celestial-Seasoning

Hain Celestial Group, Inc., makers of Celestial Seasonings teas, advertises its sleepy time/kids teas, various green teas, wellness teas, k-cups, and other teas as “100% Natural.” However, the results of a December 2012 analysis by EuroFins, a worldwide analytic testing company, indicate that 10 of the 11 teas tested contained pesticide levels that exceed U.S. Federal limits.

The pesticides found in Hain Celestial’s teas include Propachlor, found in Sleepytime Kids Goodnight Grape tea, a chemical that was placed on the Proposition 65 list as known to the State of California to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. Propachlor is also listed by the Pesticide Action Database as a Bad Actor Chemical (meaning it is toxic, carcinogenic, or a known reproductive or developmental toxicant), a carcinogen, and a developmental or reproductive toxin. Other Hain Celestial teas tested, including English Breakfast Black K-Cup, Green Tea Peach Blossom, Green Tea Raspberry Gardens, Antioxidant Max Blackberry Pomegranite, Antioxidant Max Blood Orange, and Antioxidant Max Dragon Fruit contained Propargite, another chemical on the Proposition 65 list, known by the State of California to cause cancer and developmental toxicity. Despite these findings, to this day, Celestial Seasonings markets its products as “100% Natural Teas.”

Hain Celestial Group responded to consumer concerns about toxic chemicals found in its tea products by indicating that it had its own tea samples tested by the National Food Lab, which was supposedly “an industry-leading third-party lab…” However, The National Food Lab was not exactly a “third-party lab” as its website had prominently listed Celestial Seasonings as one of its clients (compare The National Food Labs’ current “Our Clients” webpage, not listing specific client names, to this web archive of the same webpage, specifically listing Celestial Seasonings).

Khorrami Boucher Sumner Sanguinetti, LLP is currently investigating false advertising, unfair competition, and other claims on behalf of consumers who purchased Hain Celestial Group teas advertised as “100% Natural.” If you purchased an adulterated Celestial Seasoning tea product, you may be entitled to relief. Please call Khorrami Boucher, LLP for a confidential consultation.

April 24, 2014 / Corina Valderrama

Lawsuit Filed Against Wells Fargo for Loan Modification Violations

wellsfargo

Henry and Renee Garcia have filed a potential class action lawsuit in California federal court against Wells Fargo alleging it violated California consumer laws by billing late fees to, or foreclosing on, state homeowners who had loan modification applications pending with the bank.

According to the lawsuit, Wells Fargo practices “dual tracking”, which is when a bank pursues a foreclosure while simultaneously processing loan modifications. On January 1, 2013, the California Homeowner Bill of Rights was enacted, prohibiting this conduct.

The Garcias allege that they applied for a loan modification with Wells Fargo but the bank charged them $840 in late fees and prepared to foreclose on their property before their application process was complete. The lawsuit seeks to establish two subclasses: one for alleged victims of dual tracking and another for homeowners who were illegally charged late fees.

If you or someone you know has suffered from a similar experience, please contact Khorrami Boucher, LLP for a private consultation.

April 24, 2014 / Corina Valderrama

Bayer Sued for Mirena IUD Birth Control Complications

Bayer 2

Nine women have filed a lawsuit in California federal court against Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc. alleging complications related to its birth control device, Mirena IUD.

Mirena is designed to be inserted into the uterus by a physician to prevent pregnancy through hormonal actions and can remain in place for up to five years. The lawsuit itself does not discuss the details of the plaintiffs’ injuries but other lawsuits and complaints have listed several alleged complications with the device. Among these are claims that the device can perforate the uterus or punch its way through the walls of the organ and cause damage to other organs of the pelvis and abdomen. Other alleged complications include permanent damage to the reproductive systems that can cause sterility.

The litigation against Bayer over the Mirena IUD has taken the form of a multidistrict litigation comprising of hundreds of individual Mirena lawsuits filed across the country.

If you or someone you know has suffered injury as a result of a defective product, please contact Khorrami Boucher, LLP for a private consultation.

April 24, 2014 / Cathy Kim

Takeda to Pay $6 Billion in Actos Cancer Lawsuits

actos 1

On April 7, 2014, a federal court in Louisiana ordered Japanese drug maker Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. to pay $6 billion in punitive damages in settlement of allegations that the company concealed information regarding the risk for cancer associated with its diabetes drug Actos.  Eli Lilly and Co., a co-defendant in the case, was ordered to pay $3 billion in punitive damages and $1.45 billion in compensatory damages.  This was the first federal case to be tried in a consolidated multidistrict litigation comprising of more than 2,900 lawsuits. 

Actos is a member of class of drugs known as thiazolidinediones, used to treat type 2 diabetes.  The side effects of Actos include increased risk for bladder cancer, congestive heart failure, serious liver problems, and fractures.  According to Eli Lilly and Co., 75 percent of the liability was allocated to Takeda and 25 percent to Lilly.  Takeda plans to appeal the award, stating that judgments were entered in its favor in all three previous Actos trials. 

If you or someone you know has been affected by the drug Actos, please contact Khorrami Boucher, LLP for a consultation.

April 24, 2014 / Corina Valderrama

Heinz Distilled White Vinegar Not “All Natural”

this one

The U.S. based food company, H. J. Heinz Company (“Heinz”), markets its Heinz Distilled White Vinegar as “all natural” despite the fact that the product is made with genetically modified crops. Genetically modified crops are plants used in agriculture, the DNA of which has been modified and altered through genetic engineering in a way that does not occur naturally.

Feeding into the recently growing health-conscious trend, some manufacturers have been quick to label products as “all natural” to boost sales; even though many products still contain GMOs and additives. Consumers pay more for a product, or choose one product over another, based on the representation that these products are “all natural.”

Although the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture are charged with enforcing the labeling laws on food manufacturers, neither agency has specifically defined the term “natural” or “all natural” creating an environment that allows manufacturers to loosely play with the terms. Until there is more detailed regulation, consumers can protect their rights through the judicial system by bringing claims for false advertising and fraud.

If you or anyone you know has recently purchased Heinz’s Distilled White Vinegar, please contact Khorrami Boucher, LLP at (213) 596-6000 and ask to speak to Corina for a private consultation.

 

April 24, 2014 / Brandon Brouillette

Crisco ‘Natural’ Cooking Oils False Advertising Investigation

oil

The law offices of Khorrami Boucher Sumner Sanguinetti, LLP are investigating allegations of false advertising made by the J.M. Smucker Co. in relation to the marketing and advertising several of its Crisco® brand cooking oils as “all natural.”

Under the Crisco® brand moniker J.M Smucker Co. sells various cooking oils, including Crisco® Pure Canola Oil, Crisco® Puritan Peanut Oil, Crisco® Natural Blend Oil, Crisco® Pure Corn Oil, and Crisco® Vegetable Oil. J.M. Smucker Co. represents through its advertising and product labels that each of these products are “all natural.” However, some, if not all of these products are said to contain Genetically modified (GM) foods.

GM foods are defined by the World Health Organization as those “derived from organisms whose genetic material (DNA) has been modified in a way that does not occur naturally, e.g. through the introduction of a gene from a different organism.” Over time more and more consumers are becoming wary of GM foods and the unknown side effects that they may cause. Moreover, many consumers do product comparisons when they shop and look for “all natural” or similar labeling on a product before they decide which product to purchase. Based on that decision consumers may end up paying a higher cost solely on the basis of a representation that may not be true.

If you would like to put a stop to misleading food labeling practices and have purchased Crisco® brand cooking oils on the false belief that the products were “all natural,” please contact the law offices of Khorrami Boucher, LLP for a free confidential consultation regarding your potential claims for relief.

April 24, 2014 / Brandon Brouillette

Chase Freedom Card False Advertising Investigation

ch

The law offices of Khorrami Boucher Sumner Sanguinetti, LLP are investigating allegations of false advertising made by Chase Bank USA in relation to marketing and advertising the Chase Freedom Card credit card.

In marketing and advertising the Chase Freedom Card, Chase Bank USA allegedly promised consumers a reward of 20,000 points if they opened a new Chase Freedom Card account and made $500 in purchases within three months of opening their account. The 20,000 points could then be redeemed for $200 bonus. However, several consumers have reported that despite holding up their end of the bargain by applying for a new Chase Freedom Card account and making $500 worth of purchases in the ensuing three months, Chase Bank USA only issued 10,000 points, which could only be redeemed for $100, or half of the Chase Freedom Card’s advertised limited time bonus.

If you are a Chase Bank USA customer that opened up a new Chase Freedom Card account during their 20,000 point promotion and did not receive the 20,000 points or $200 promised, then you may be entitled to relief. Please contact the law offices of Khorrami Boucher, LLP for a free consultation.

April 22, 2014 / Brandon Brouillette

First Financial Services, Inc. Class Action Lawsuit Investigation

FFSi_2-Color_OrgGrey%201_5in

The law offices of Khorrami Boucher Sumner Sanguinetti, LLP are conducting an ongoing investigation into the business practices of First Financial Services, Inc. on suspicion that it violated various federal regulations. First Financial is a direct –to-consumer home mortgage lender that offers low interest mortgage loans through its website and online marketplaces like www.zillow.com.

The Truth in Lending Act requires that loan applicants are provided a Truth in Lending disclosure statement setting forth the material terms of a loan before they are assessed any fees other than an initial credit application fee.

The Real-Estate Settlement Procedures Act requires that loan applicants are provided a Good Faith Estimate setting forth the material terms of a loan before they are assessed any fees other than initial application fee.

The Equal Credit Opportunity Act requires creditor to notify applicants within 30 days after receiving a completed application concerning the creditor’s approval of, counteroffer to, or adverse action on the application. If a creditor receives an incomplete application that an applicant can complete, then the creditor is required to notify the applicant within 30 days of either any adverse action taken on the incomplete application, or alternatively, that the application is incomplete and specifying the additional information needed to complete the application.

In addition, some consumers that have applied for loans from First Financial have complained that they were told that their loan terms would be ‘locked in’ during the loan application process for a long enough time to close the loan, only to experience extended delays in processing the loan and an expiration of any ‘locked in’ terms, such that they were required to pay additional charges or a higher interest rate in order to close the loan.

If you applied for a loan from First Financial Services, Inc. and believe you may have not received any of the required notices above, or did not receive the benefit of your ‘locked in’ terms, then please contact an attorney from the law offices of Khorrami Boucher, LLP for a confidential consultation.

 

Consumer Advocate Legal Update

Insight and Commentary on Consumer Legal Issues

Plaintiffs-Advocate

Insight and Commentary on Individual Rights

Fair Employment Legal Update

Insight and Commentary on Legal Employment Issues

KB News

Legal Updates and News About Khorrami Boucher, LLP

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 478 other followers