JOHNSON’S BEDTIME BATH PRODUCTS CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Johnson & Johnson have agreed to pay $5 million to settle accusations that the company falsely advertised its baby bedtime products as “clinically proven” to help babies sleep better.

If granted final approval, the baby product class action settlement will resolve claims from four class action lawsuits lawsuits filed by parents who alleged that they paid more for the Johnson’s “bedtime” products over other soaps and lotions based on the marketing claims.

The plaintiffs say they bought the bedtime products and followed “the 3-step nightly routine” recommended by Johnson & Johnson “for a period of time” with their children, but the personal care items “did not help [their] babies sleep any better.”

According to the class action lawsuits, Johnson & Johnson “knew or should have known, at the time it began selling the products, that there are no studies showing that the bedtime products are clinically proven to provide any results and [Johnson & Johnson] has no basis to make the claims about its products.”

Products covered in the settlement include JOHNSON’S® BEDTIME® Baby Bath, JOHNSON’S® BEDTIME® Baby Lotion, JOHNSON’S® BEDTIME® Baby Moisture Wash, JOHNSON’S® Baby BEDTIME® Washcloths, and JOHNSON’S®  BEDTIME® Baby Bubble Bath & Wash.

The Johnson & Johnson class action settlement will award $3 per product. Class Members without a proof of purchase may be awarded up to $15. Those who include a receipt with their Claim Form, are expected to receive up to $30 from the class action settlement.

If any money remains in the $5 million settlement fund after paying all claimants and litigation expenses, the remainder will be donated to the Nurse Family Partnership and Newborns in Need.

According to the baby product class action settlement agreement, Johnson & Johnson will continue to be allowed to use advertising and marketing language that states that the “routine helps baby fall asleep faster and stay asleep longer” or similar language regarding the routine, alongside any clinically proven language.

Johnson & Johnson strongly denied all of the allegations but agreed to settle the class action lawsuits to avoid the cost and burden of ongoing litigation.

Class Members who want to object to or exclude themselves from the terms of the settlement must do so by Dec. 19, 2016.

Who’s Eligible

Johnson & Johnson settlement Class Members include all consumers who bought one or more of the following “bedtime” products within the U.S., the District of Columbia or any U.S. territories,  including  Puerto  Rico,  Guam  and  the  Virgin  Islands between July 1, 2010 and Aug. 31, 2016:

  • JOHNSON’S® BEDTIME® Baby Bath
  • JOHNSON’S® BEDTIME® Baby Lotion
  • JOHNSON’S® BEDTIME® Baby Moisture Wash
  • JOHNSON’S® Baby BEDTIME® Washcloths
  • JOHNSON’S®  BEDTIME® Baby Bubble Bath & Wash

The covered products must have been labeled (or advertised) as “clinically proven” to help a baby sleep better or to be used as part of a “bedtime” and/or “nighttime” routine.

Potential Award

up to $30. 

According to the class action settlement, Class Members who submit a valid and timely Claim Form can receive $3 per product for five covered products without proof of purchase. Those who are able to submit a proof of purchase along with their Claim Form can claim up to 10 products for a total of $30.

Note: These awards may be adjusted pro rata, depending on the total number of claims approved.

Proof of Purchase

Class Members who want to claim more than five covered products, must submit a proof of purchase along with their Claim Form. A proof of purchase is defined in the settlement as “a receipt or other documentation from a third-party reasonably establishing the fact and date of purchase of a Covered Product during the Class Period.”

Claim Form Deadline

04/28/2017

Case Name

Stephanie Leiner v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-05876, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The parties in the following three cases have moved to stay their lawsuits pending final judgment on this settlement: Jacqueline Real v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-05025, in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California; Jinette Hidalgo v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-05199, in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York; and Jillian Gallagher, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Cos. Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-06163, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Final Hearing

01/18/2017

Settlement Website
Claims Administrator

Baby Bedtime Settlement
c/o Dahl Administration
P.O. Box 3614
Minneapolis, MN 55403-0614

Toll Free: 1-855-271-7182
Fax: 1-952-955-4589

Class Counsel

SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH LLP
POMERANTZ LLP

Defense Counsel

CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT LLP
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

Omaha Steaks TCPA Class Action Lawsuit Settlement

A class action settlement has been reached with Omaha Steaks Inc. over allegations that the food company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

According to the lawsuit filed by plaintiff Michael Hetherington, Omaha Steaks placed phone calls to cell phones (and other phone numbers where the call recipient was charged for the call) using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS). An ATDS uses a number generator to produce random or sequential phone numbers that are then dialed and the call is placed.

The plaintiff alleged that thousands of these autodialed phone calls were placed over the last four years to cell phone customers without their previous express written consent to receive such calls, in violation of the TCPA.

Omaha Steaks denied any wrongdoing and assert that they have not acted improperly under the law. They stated that they believe to have many defenses to ensure their success at a trial, including their belief that a Class would not be granted certification.

However, Omaha Steaks agreed to enter into a settlement with the plaintiff and Class to avoid the cost of a trial. The plaintiff as Class Representative and Class Counsel feel this settlement is in the best interest of Settlement Class Members.

Omaha Steaks agreed to pay between $4.5 and $5.2 million to resolve the claims in the TCPA class action lawsuit.

Class members wishing to exclude themselves or object to the settlement must send their request by mail postmarked no later than June 3, 2016.

Who’s Eligible

All persons and entities to whom OS placed calls to their cellular telephones through means other than manually dialing each digit of the telephone number during the time period from and including December 9, 2009, through and including December 17, 2013, without their prior express consent.”

Potential Award

Up to $60 cash or up to $80 for a Reward Card redeemable at Omaha Steaks

Proof of Purchase

N/A

Eligible claimants must sign a sworn statement that they received a call from Omaha Steaks during the eligible class period without prior consent.

Claim Form Deadline

08/12/2016

Case Name

Hetherington v. Omaha Steaks Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-2152, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon

Final Hearing

08/12/2016

Settlement Website
Claims Administrator

Food Call Settlement
Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 30210
College Station, TX 77842-3210

1-877-369-4030

Class Counsel

John P. Wolff, III
Christopher K. Jones
KEOGH, COX & WILSON, LTD.

Philip Bohrer
BOHRER LAW FIRM, L.L.C.

Keith S. Dubanevich
Jennifer S. Wagner
STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C.

Defense Counsel

Duane A. Bosworth
Kenneth E. Payson
Jaime Drozd Allen
James Corning
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

American Express Interest Rate Class Action Settlement

A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit that alleges that certain credit cards issued by American Express Centurion Bank and American Express Bank FSB with a fixed interest rate were improperly changed to a variable interest rate.

If you had an American Express card with a fixed interest rate and you received a notice of a rate increase or a change to a variable rate between Oct. 1, 2005 and Dec. 31, 2010, you may be eligible for benefits from the AmEx interest rate class action settlement.

According to the AmEx class action lawsuit, the interest rate on credit cards issued by American Express with a fixed interest rate could not be increased or changed to a variable interest rate unless the account was delinquent or in default.

However, the plaintiffs claim that they were charged a higher interest rate after they incurred a balance on their AmEx cards.

The plaintiffs assert claims against AmEx for violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

AmEx denies any wrongdoing but agreed to settle the interest rate class action lawsuit to avoid the expense and distraction of litigation. AmEx has agreed to pay up to $6 million to resolve the litigation.

The American Express APR class action settlement was preliminarily approved on Feb. 16, 2016.

Who’s Eligible

Class Members of the AmEx settlement include all persons and entities in the United States who had a consumer or small business AmEx credit card or charge account with American Express Bank FSB or America Express Centurion Bank and:

  • Had a fixed annual percentage rate on the account that was increased or changed to a variable rate between Oct. 1, 2005 and Dec. 31, 2010; or
  • Had a fixed annual percentage rate on the account and were provided notice of an increase in the fixed rate or a change from a fixed rate to a variable rate between Oct. 1, 2005 and Dec. 31, 2010.
Potential Award

$32.50 (estimated)

The actual amount of money each Class Member receives depends on the total number of timely and valid claims that are filed.

Proof of Purchase

N/A

Claim Form Deadline

08/30/2016

Case Name

Alfredo M. Lopez, et al. v. American Express Bank FSB, et al., Case No. 2:09-cv-07335-SJO-MAN, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division

Final Hearing

10/17/2016

Settlement Website
Claims Administrator

Lopez v. AMEX Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 3747
Portland, OR 97208-3747
1-877-803-8698
info@APRSettlement.com

Class Counsel

Marc R. Stanley
STANLEY LAW GROUP

Michael D. Braun
BRAUN LAW GROUP PC

Defense Counsel

Julia B. Strickland
STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP

This post sponsored by Liquid Claims Class Action Securities Settlements & Services

Tom’s of Maine Products Class Action Settlement

Tom’s of Maine Inc. has agreed to settle a false advertisement class action lawsuit, resolving claims that the company mislabeled certain beauty and personal care products as natural when they allegedly contained chemical products. If you purchased one of the Tom’s of Maine products covered in this false advertisement class action settlement, you may be entitled to compensation.

Covered Products in this Tom’s of Maine class action settlement include:

  • Toothpaste
  • Deodorant/Antiperspirant
  • Soap
  • Diaper Cream
  • Lip Balm or Gloss
  • Sunscreen
  • Body Lotion
  • Body Wash
  • Shampoo
  • Hand Cream
  • Mouthwash
  • Other personal or oral care products

Plaintiff Allison Gay and other individuals filed this Tom’s of Maine false ad class action lawsuit in March 2015, alleging the company purposefully mislabeled their personal hygiene and beauty products listed above as “natural” when they allegedly contained unnatural substances.

For example, the Tome’s of Main class action lawsuit states that the brand’s “natural” toothpaste contains both glycerin and sodium lauryl sulfate.

Tom’s of Maine has denied all wrongdoing and liability in this false ad class action lawsuit, but has agreed to settle in order to avoid the uncertainty of continued litigation and mounting court costs.

A federal judge preliminarily approved the Tom’s of Maine settlement on Sept. 9, 2015.

In addition to paying $4.5 million to establish a settlement fund for Class Members, the Tom’s of Maine class action settlement requires the company to change their labeling and marketing practices for the Covered Products, as well as make certain changes to the company’s website.

Who’s Eligible

You are a Class Member of the Tom’s of Maine class action settlement if purchased at least one of the Tom’s of Maine products covered in this lawsuit between March 25, 2009 and Sept. 23, 2015.

Potential Award

Up to $28, depending on the information you provide in your Claim Form.

Proof of Purchase

In order to claim your portion of the Tom’s of Maine class action settlement, you must complete online or mail in a complete Claim Form by May 7, 2016, which should include the following information:

  • Your Mailing Address.
  • Description of total number and type of Tom’s of Maine Covered Products that you have purchased. You should also include the purchase location.
  • Signature affirming all the information you provided is true.
Claim Form Deadline

05/07/2016

Case Name
Allison Gay, et al. v. Tom’s of Maine, Inc., Case No. 0:14-cv-60604-KMM, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Final Hearing

01/28/2016

Settlement Website
Claims Administrator

Tom’s of Maine Settlement
c/o Dahl Administration
P.O. Box 3614
Minneapolis, MN 55403-0614
1-888-897-9554

Class Counsel

SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLP
REESE LLP
HALUNEN LAW
DOSTART CLAPP & COVENEY LLP
THE FEINBERG LAW FIRM

Defense Counsel

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

Stevia in the Raw

The manufacturer Stevia In The Raw has agreed to pay more than $1.5 million in order to settle a class action lawsuit that alleges the company deceptively labeled its product as “all natural.”

If you purchased at least one Stevia in the Raw brand Consumer Product containing the phrases “natural,” “all natural” or “100% natural” in the United States between Oct. 9, 2009 and July 1, 2014, you may be eligible for a cash payment.

Lead plaintiff Leslie Frohberg of New York accused Stevia In The Raw maker Cumberland Packing Corp. of misleading customers by the “natural” claims listed on sweetener packages.

According to the Stevia class action lawsuit, the label prominently states that Stevia In The Raw is a “100% Natural Zero Calorie Sweetener” and Frohberg says she paid more because she believed it to be natural.

However, the Stevia In The Raw class action lawsuit states that Cumberland conceals from customers that ingredients dextrose and maltodextrin are derived from highly processed GMO corn, in part by stating that they are “natural carbohydrate[s].”

Frohberg alleges that by labeling the sugar substitute as “natural,” “all natural” or “100% natural,” Stevia In The Raw manufacturer has “profited enormously.” She claims that there were less expensive sweeteners available to customers but Class Members were willing to pay extra for a “natural” product.

In addition to the Settlement Fund, Cumberland has also agreed to stop using the phrases “100% natural” or “all natural” on packages or labels of its Stevia In The Raw products.

Cumberland denies that its advertising and labeling of Stevia In The Raw is deceptive but has agreed to the terms of the Stevia In The Raw class action lawsuit settlement in order to avoid the cost of further litigation.

A federal judge preliminarily approved the Stevia class action settlement on Dec. 16, 2015.

Who’s Eligible

Stevia class action settlement Class Members include all U.S. residents who purchased Stevia In The Raw product for personal use between Oct. 9, 2009, and July 1, 2014. The Stevia In the Raw package must have contained the terms “natural,” “all natural” or “100% natural.”

Potential Award

$2-$16

Class Members may receive $2 for each package of Stevia In The Raw containing the terms “natural,” “all natural” or “100% natural” that was purchased between Oct. 9, 2009 and July 1, 2014, up to a maximum of 8 packages.

Proof of Purchase

N/A

No proof of purchase is required but in order to receive payment, Class Members must file a Claim Form. Only one Claim Form is permitted for each household.

Claim Form Deadline

06/06/2016

Case Name

Frohberg v. Cumberland Packing Corp., Case No. 1:14-cv-00748-KAM-RLM in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York

Final Hearing

04/06/2016

Claims Administrator

Stevia In The Raw
c/o Dahl Administration
PO Box 3614
Minneapolis, MN 55403-0614
888-313-3557

info@SteviaInTheRawSettlement.com

Class Counsel

Michael R. Reese
REESE LLP

Melissa W. Wolchansky
HALUNEN LAW

Defense Counsel

Todd Kinnear
Benjamin Aaron Levine
Michael D. Scully
Richard Spira
GORDON & REES LLP