Class Action Blog : Consumer Fraud, Consumer Protection, Securities and Antitrust Lawyer & Attorney : Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz

You can’t fool all of the people all of the time -- but you can make a fortune fooling some of the people some of the time. 

That, at least, is the upshot of numerous consumer complaints about Lipozene, a dietary supplement that is supposed to promote rapid weight loss without exercise.

Consumers are not only disappointed in Lipozene’s performance, but disgusted with the marketing practices of its manufacturer, Obesity Research Institute LLC.  Consumers’ complaints include:

● A would-be Lipozene buyer says he changed his mind before “submitting” his on-line order, but his credit card was charged $41.25 anyway.

● A Lipozene user saw no results during the first month. When a sales rep called to sell her a second bottle, she refused. A second bottle was shipped to her anyway, she was charged for it, and her request for a refund was denied.

● Lipozene made a user sick, and repeated requests for a refund were denied, “and now I’m stuck with $153 worth of pills that make me sick.”

● Several other consumers said they were charged for on-line purchases of Lipozene despite clicking “cancel” rather than “submit,” and that the company refused to provide refunds. 

Typically, reputable companies don’t resort to such high-pressure tactics if they have a legitimate product to sell. But Lipozene’s effectiveness is questionable.

More than three years ago, the Los Angeles Times quoted a nutritional sciences professor who said that if you took enough of Lipozene’s active ingredient to lose a substantial amount of weight, “your gut would explode.”

The ingredient, a plant fiber called glucomannan, mixes with water to form an indigestible gel that could, in theory, make you feel full and reduce your appetite. It’s been approved by the Food and Drug Administration as a food thickening agent, but not as a weight-loss supplement. The nutrition professor, Vladimir Vuksan of the University of Toronto, told the L.A. Times it would take 20 to 30 grams of glucomannan a day to achievesubstantial weight loss -- enough to cause severe diarrhea and other gastrointestinal distress.

If you, or someone you know, purchased Lipozene and were harmed by taking this product, and/or were charged for the product without authorizing the charges, please contact us to discuss your legal options. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Go Daddy is a company that allows persons to register and host domain names for websites. People who want to register website domain names can go to Go Daddy.com and pay to have the company register their domain name and serve as the host for the website.  However, many people who wish to cancel their domain name or have it transferred to another web hosting company often find it difficult to cancel their registration with Go Daddy.  Go Daddy apparently has an auto-renewal policy by which the registrations are automatically renewed, often without the registrant knowing about the automatic renewal.  Of course, with the automatic renewal comes an additional renewal fee, which in many cases is charged to the registrants’ credit cards without them even knowing.  Go Daddy would likely argue that it is doing you a service by automatically renewing your registration, such that it does not expire, but the automatic renewal is often done without knowledge or consent, which is particularly irksome to persons who wish that their domain registration expire or be transferred to another web hosting company.

If you or someone you know has had difficulty canceling or transferring a domain registration with Go Daddy, please contact us to discuss your legal rights.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Using reputable websites, not responding to false solicitations or phishing scams and keeping your security software up to date may provide all the protection you need for online shopping.  An entirely new scam may leave you buying things you do not intend to purchase and even from sellers you do not want to buy from.

Clickjacking refers to hidden software that has infested a seller’s website.  The shopper sees the seller’s website on his computer screen.  Unknown to seller and shopper alike, malicious code imbedded in the website places an invisible page over the page of the seller’s website.  The action buttons or links of the visible page are actually covered by unseen code.  When the buyer clicks a button, he thinks he is performing an intended action, but is actually giving an instruction or making a purchase he is totally unaware of.  This can result in excess purchases, the transmission of credit card information to unintended recipients or even the installation of malicious software on your own computer.   Online sellers must do everything they can to prevent their site from being compromised by clickjacking software.  Their failure to do so may leave them liable to those victimized by their poor security.

No computer, operating system or web browser is naturally immune from clickjacking.  Consumers should install all security upgrades for their browsers and activate any options that are designed to prevent clickjacking.  Online shoppers must examine credit card and banking statements carefully to screen for unauthorized transactions.

If you think you have been victimized by clickjacking,  please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

When tickets for Leonard Cohen’s new tour went on sale at 10:00 a.m. on March 9, 2009, the tickets were listed on ticketmaster.com as being sold out within minutes. Mysteriously, at that same exact time and day, fans were told they could purchase tickets at a TicketExchange, a wholly owned subsidiary of Ticketmaster. Not surprisingly, TicketExchange was offering the very same Leonard Cohen tickets for hundreds or thousands of dollars more than the face value of the tickets. Moreover, at that same time, TicketsNow -- also a wholly owned subsidiary of Ticketmaster -- was also selling Leonard Cohen tickets for hundreds of dollars more.

What some Leonard Cohen fans may not have known was that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Ticketmaster in California by the firm of Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz P.C., alleging that Ticketmaster has engaged in deceptive business practices by redirecting consumers to TicketsNow.com, a website which specializes in the secondary, resale market for tickets. The class action complaint alleges that consumers do not know that TicketsNow.com is a fully owned subsidiary of Ticketmaster, and any tickets purchased on TicketsNow.com are essentially being purchased from Ticketmaster itself, albeit at an obscene mark-up.

Ticketmaster’s conduct in the sale of the Leonard Cohen tickets has not only enraged fans, it has also sparked a comment about Ticketmaster’s business practices from United States Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY). “This seems to be the kind of sleight of hand we have come to expect from Ticketmaster and it cannot be allowed to continue.” The Senator went on to state that, “Time and again, Ticketmaster appears to be going out of its way to prevent concertgoers from paying face value for tickets.” 

The fact that ticketmaster.com sold out of tickets at the same time that Leonard Cohen tickets were being made available on TicketExchange raises serious questions about Ticketmaster’s business practices and whether it engaged it deliberate and intentional deceptive business practices.

If you were forced to purchase one or more Leonard Cohen tickets through TicketExchange at prices above the face value of the tickets because you were barred or redirected from purchasing tickets at ticketmaster.com, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

When tickets for Bruce Springsteen’s new tour went on sale at 9:00 a.m. on February 2, 2009, fans had only one option to purchase tickets: exclusively through ticketmaster.com. Mysteriously, at that same exact time and day, ticketmaster.com’s website began experiencing “technical difficulties” and Springsteen fans could not purchase any tickets to the Boss’ shows. Instead, conspicuously placed on the same ticketmaster.com screen that informed fans that the website was experiencing “technical difficulties,” was an alternative purchasing option from TicketsNow.com, offering the very same Springsteen tickets for hundreds of dollars more than the face value of the tickets.

Thousands of other Bruce Springsteen fans who were able to get beyond the “technical difficulties” which ticketmaster.com was allegedly experiencing were informed that all tickets for all shows across the country were already sold out. They too were conspicuously re-directed to TicketsNow.com where they could elect to purchase tickets for the “sold out” shows for 10 to 50 times the face value of the tickets.

What Bruce Springsteen fans did not know was that in a recent effort to expand its business and profits, Ticketmaster acquired TicketsNow.com, a website which specializes in the secondary, resale market for tickets. Indeed, TicketsNow.com is a fully owned subsidiary of Ticketmaster, and any tickets purchased on TicketsNow.com are essentially being purchased from Ticketmaster itself, albeit at an obscene mark-up.

Ticketmaster’s conduct in the sale of these tickets has not only enraged fans of Bruce Springsteen and the Boss himself, it has also sparked a Congressional inquiry into Ticketmaster’s business practices. United States Representative Bill Pascrell, Jr. (D-NJ) has requested that the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division (“DOJ”) and the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) investigate Ticketmaster’s relationship with its subsidiary TicketsNow.com, and their handling of ticket sales for the Bruce Springsteen tour. 

The fact that ticketmaster.com experienced “technical problems” at the exact time that Bruce Springsteen tickets were to be sold, and the speed with which tickets were made available on TicketsNow.com – a fully owned subsidiary of Ticketmaster – raises serious questions about Ticketmaster’s business practices and whether it engaged it deliberate and intentional deceptive business practices.

If you were forced to purchase one or more Bruce Springsteen tickets through TicketsNow.com at prices above the face value of the tickets because you were barred from purchasing tickets at ticketmaster.com, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (10)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

One of the country’s largest credit and debit card payment processing companies, Heartland Payment Systems (“Heartland”) based in Princeton, New Jersey, announced on Monday, January 19, 2009, that credit and debit card numbers, expiration dates and cardholders names were stolen after its computer systems were hacked. Although the Heartland breach exposed the personal data of 600 million or more cardholders, and Heartland became aware of the breach in fall, 2008 -- and may even have been aware of the breach as early as May, 2008 -- it did not publicly reveal the breach until just two days ago, exposing millions of cardholders to the possibility of fraud for many months.

The Heartland data breach could wind up rivaling some of the largest data thefts in history. In January, 2007, the retail chain TJ Maxx (“TJX”) admitted that confidential credit and debit card data on more than 45 million customers had been compromised. Avivah Litan, a data security analyst interviewed by the New York Times, said that the Heartland breach may dwarf the TJX breach and could result in hundreds of millions in losses and other expenses. “If you add it all up . . . it could cost as much as half a billion dollars in losses – or twice as big as TJX,” she said.

Cardholders are advised to examine their credit and debit card monthly statements closely for any evidence of fraudulent unauthorized charges. Should you find unauthorized charges on your credit or debit card statements, and you believe that your credit or debit card information was stolen as a result of the Heartland breach, please contact us immediately to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In August, 2008, Meisleman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz, P.C. filed a class action complaint in federal court in Massachusetts on behalf of Deloris Gordon and all others similarly situated (the “Class”) alleging that Adaptive Marketing, LLC (“Adaptive”) and its parent company Vertrue, Inc. (“Vertrue”), along with VistaPrint USA, Inc. (“VistaPrint”) and its parent company VistaPrint Limited (collectively “Defendants”), are perpetrating; specifically, the practice of imposing unauthorized charges upon unsuspecting consumers who order services or merchandise from VistaPrint and whose personal and confidential credit card and bank account information is then accessed by Adaptive Marketing and Vertrue without Plaintiff’s or the Class’ prior permission.

Soon after Plaintiff Gordon’s complaint was filed, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued a Transfer Order, dated December 11, 2008, that Gordon’s complaint -- along with six other class action complaints filed across the country -- be assigned to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas for coordinated or consolidation proceedings. On or about March 2, 2009, Plaintiff Gordon, along with three other plaintiffs, filed a consolidated class action complaint (“Complaint”), which can be accessed here.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants’ business models are based on gaining access to confidential credit card and bank account information in order to charge consumers fees for worthless “memberships” and “services” that plaintiffs and other Class members never desired or authorized. By doing so, the Complaint states, Defendants have established one of the largest unauthorized consumer billing operations in the United States through the placement of internet advertising on various legitimate (and illegitimate) websites. As the Complaint alleges, VistaPrint’s advertisements purport to sell graphic design and customized printed products, while Vertrue and Adaptive Marketing purport to sell membership programs that provide discounts on various consumer goods and services. And, as the Complaint states, because there is no legitimate demand for Adaptive Marketing’s membership programs, VistaPrint’s internet websites and advertisements serve as a pretext for gaining access to consumers’ confidential financial information in order to charge unauthorized fees.

In fact, the Complaint further alleges, consumers almost never legitimately join any of Vertrue and Adaptive Marketing’s various membership programs, nor do they authorize Defendants Vertrue and Adaptive Marketing to charge their credit cards or debit from their bank accounts any monies. The Complaint asserts that when consumers contact any of the Defendants to request that they remove and refund the unauthorized fees charged to their credit cards, they are given the “runaround”, and are unable to obtain refunds of the unauthorized charges.

The class action Complaint is brought on behalf of a nationwide class of all persons who were charged fees or interest by Defendants, or any one of their subsidiaries, without first obtaining plaintiffs’ and the Class’ prior authorization. The Complaint seeks a refund of all unauthorized fees charged to consumers and reimbursement of interest expenses incurred by Class members as a result of Defendants’ scheme.

If you’ve been charged unauthorized fees by Defendants without Defendants first obtaining your permission, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (102)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link