Consumer Litigation

Aspinall v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc.

Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP is currently representing a certified class of Massachusetts residents and other regular purchasers of Marlboro Lights cigarettes in Massachusetts between approximately 1994 and 1998. The consumers challenge the labeling of such cigarettes as "Lights" and delivering "Lowered Tar and Nicotine" as false and misleading in violation of the Massachusetts consumer protection statute.

The case was originally certified as a class action in October of 2001 and affirmed by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in August of 2004, which is reported at 442 Mass. 381 (2004). The favorable decision of the Supreme Judicial Court in this action has been essential in ensuring the rights of Massachusetts consumers to bring their claims for unfair and deceptive business practices in the form of a class action.

The firm also successfully prevailed against Philip Morris' argument that a consumers' claims under state law were preempted by federal law and the actions of the Federal Trade Commission before both the Massachusetts Superior Court and the Supreme Judicial Court, which is reported at 453 Mass. 431 (2009). The remaining issues in the case are still being litigated before the Massachusetts Superior Court.

Altria v. Good

In a similar action brought by two other law firms in the federal district court in Maine, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP successfully argued an appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to defeat the same federal preemption argument Philip Morris made in the Massachusetts Aspinall litigation. The decision is reported at 501 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2007). It was later affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States, and the firm was on the brief before the Supreme Court and played a critical role in preparing the case for argument. The decision of the Supreme Court is reported at 128 S.Ct. 1119 (2008). With that appeal concluded, the case returned to the federal district court in Maine and is to be handled by the lawyers who had originally tried the case.

William Meaney et al. v. OneBeacon Insurance Group, LLC

Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP has filed a consumer class action on behalf of all persons who received an arbitration award against a variety of insurance companies operating in Massachusetts. The consumers challenge the companies' failure to pay interest from the date of the arbitration awards to the date that the insurance company paid the awards, and the consumers seek to recover the unpaid interest and the interest that is owed on those awards. In addition, the action seeks to recover triple damages on those amounts and attorneys' fees under the Massachusetts' consumer protection statute.

Westside EKG

Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP, along with its co-counsel in Florida, are prosecuting a class action on behalf of medical service providers in the State of Florida against various health maintenance organizations ("HMOs") alleging that the HMOs failed to timely pay claims of non-participating medical service providers for medical services provided to the HMOs' insureds, in violation of the prompt pay provisions of Florida's Health Maintenance Organization Act, Fla. Stat. § 641.355 (the "Act").

This case has already been to the Florida Supreme Court, where Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP and its Florida co-counsel prevailed with a seminal ruling by the Florida Supreme Court that the prompt pay provisions under the Act are incorporated into the contracts between the HMOs and their insureds. The Court also ruled that non-participating medical service providers are third-party beneficiaries of those contracts and accordingly they may sue the HMOs for their failure to comply with the prompt pay provisions of the Act. Foundation Health v. Westside EKG, 944 So.2d 188 (Fla. 2006). The case is currently back in the trial court (Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County).

Hoang v. Reunion.com

Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP is co-lead counsel in a putative class action seeking to represent all recipients of allegedly false and misleading emails sent by a social networking company, Reunion.com, as part of its scheme to inflate membership by luring recipients of such emails into believing someone is specifically looking for them.  Specifically, the from lines suggested that an acquaintance of the recipient sent the email instead of Reunion.com, and, in some cases, the sender’s email contained a domain name such as yahoo.com even though it was Reunion.com that sent the message.  The subject lines of the emails were also false and deceptive because they told the recipients that the purported sender of the email was trying to connect with them when in fact, Reunion.com authored and sent the message and the purported “sender” had no opportunity to review or modify the message before it was sent.  These practices were the subject of numerous complaints to the Federal Trade Commission and the Better Business Bureau.  The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of  California in San Francisco alleging that the emails violated California law.  Reunion.com moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that the California state law claims were preempted by the federal CAN-SPAM statute and that the Plaintiffs lacked standing.  The Court ultimately rejected these arguments and agreed with Plaintiffs that they had standing to sue and that their claims were not preempted by federal law.  However, the Court certified these questions to the Court of Appeals for an early, or “interlocutory,” appeal.  The Court of Appeals has not yet decided whether to hear the appeal. 

Gillette M3P Razor Litigation

Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP represents consumers who purchased the M3P razor in a suit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against The Gillette Company. The case alleges that Defendants engaged in deceptive practices by claiming the M3P razor delivered micro-pulses to the shaving cartridge that raised the hair upward and away from the skin, when those claims were allegedly not true. The case has been settled, subject to the approval of the court, for cash and other benefits totaling $7.5 million. The settlement is awaiting court approval.