Consumer Fraud Lawyer

Burkhart v. Genworth Financial Inc.

In Burkhart v. Genworth Financial, Inc., Shapiro Haber & Urmy represents a putative class of more than one million long-term care (“LTC”) insurance policyholders, who have brought suit against Genworth Life Insurance Company (“GLIC”) for fraudulent conveying more than $1.5 billion in assets to its affiliates when it terminated a capital support agreement without consideration. Plaintiffs allege that GLIC intended to defraud its LTC policyholders when it terminated the capital support agreement and that the GLIC was insolvent or undercapitalized at the time of the transaction because GLIC was left with insufficient assets to pay its expected liabilities under the policies. Shapiro Haber & Urmy successfully argued to the Delaware Chancery Court, that Plaintiffs, who had not yet made claims under their policies, had standing to sue for fraudulent conveyance. Burkhart v. Genworth Fin., Inc., No. 2018-0691-JRS, 2020 Del. Ch. LEXIS 44, at *1 (Ch. Jan. 31, 2020).

Starr v. VSL Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

In Starr v. VSL Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 8:19-cv-02713-TDC (D. Md.), Shapiro Haber & Urmy serves as co-lead counsel representing consumers in a number of states asserting violations of the federal RICO statute, various state consumer protection acts, and common law relating to the defendants' deceptive marketing and sale of the medical probiotic food VSL#3. Plaintiffs claim that the defendants, the owners and distributors of VSL#3, defrauded consumers into believing a new formulation of VSL#3 sold after May 2016 was the same as the original clinically tested formulation of VSL#3 sold prior to that time, when in reality it was not. The claims are on behalf of proposed nationwide and statewide classes of consumers who purchased VSL#3 from June 2016 to the present. Shapiro Haber & Urmy successfully defeated defendants' motion to dismiss on December 28, 2020, including with respect to the federal RICO claim, and the case has been vigorously litigated since that time. Starr v. VSL Pharm., Inc., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 242774 (D. Md. 2020).

Magliacane v. City of Gardner et al.

Shapiro Haber & Urmy represents Janice Magliacane, in Magliacane v. City of Gardner, 1785-CV0-2005 (Mass. Super. Ct.). She brought a class action against the City relating to its sale and delivery of corrosive water to its residents that led to corrosion of copper heating coils in residents’ hot water heaters. On appeal from the trial court’s dismissal of the case, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled for the first time that a class action could be brought under the Massachusetts Torts Claim Act and that the statute does not require that each individual class member provide written notice of their claim. The SJC also held for the first time that fraudulent concealment tolls the presentment requirement under the MTCA. Magliacane v. City of Gardner, 483 Mass. 842 (2020). On December 28, 2022, the Superior Court certified the Class under Mass. R. Civ. P. 23.

The Complaint alleges that Gardner and its water companies have known for years that the water was corrosive and failed to implement their own plan to protect against corrosion that was recommended by City consultants. The Complaint further alleges that the City and its water companies knew for years that they could fix the problem by adjusting the water chemistry through the addition of a orthorphosphate corrosion protector. In August 2017, Gardner announced its plan to add orthophosphates to the water supply. Nevertheless, Shapiro Haber & Urmy claims that as of the time the case was filed, this solution had still not been implemented. To read the class action complaint click here.

The case Magliacane v City of Gardner et al., Case Number 1785-cv-02005, was filed in Worcester County Superior Court. For a copy of the press release, click here. For more information please contact:

Michelle Blauner 
Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP 
Phone: 617-439-3939 
Email: mblauner@shulaw.com

Jones v. Google, LLC

In Jones v. Google, LLC, No. 5:19-cv-07016-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Shapiro Haber & Urmy represents a class of children, the personal information of whom Google, Youtube, and various Youtube content creators unlawfully collected and used for their own commercial purposes in violation of state law, when children accessed child-specific areas of Youtube. The case involves cutting-edge issues of online privacy and the online protection of minors from improper commercial exploitation. After the district court dismissed the case on preemption grounds, the plaintiffs successfully appealed the district court's decision to the Ninth Circuit, resulting in an important decisionregarding the preemption of consumer protection claims. Jones v. Google LLC, 56 F.4th 735 (9th Cir. 2022). That decision clarifies that state law may provide private remedies for the invasion of children's privacy, notwithstanding the existence of federal law that also addresses the same issues.  

In re Evenflo Co.

Shapiro Haber & Urmy, is liaison counsel and a member of the executive committee in In re Evenflo Co., Inc. Marketing, Sales Practices and Product Liability Litig., MDL No. 1:20-md-02938-DJC (D.Mass.). Shapiro Haber & Haber represents consumers and proposed classes in various states who sued the maker of the Evenflo Big Kid booster carseat for allegedly selling the car seat with misleading advertising and safety claims, placing children weighing less than 40 pounds in grave danger during a car crash. After the district court dismissed the case for lack of standing, the First Circuit reversed and held that consumers who alleged that they overpaid for children's car seats because they relied on the manufacturer's misrepresentations about safety and testing plausibly demonstrated their standing to seek monetary relief because overpayment was a cognizable form of injury under U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. Xavier v. Evenflo Co. (In re Evenflo Co.), 54 F.4th 28 (1st Cir. 2022).

Levine v. Volvo Cars of North America

In Levine v. Volvo Cars of North America, LLC, No. 2:18-cv-03760-CCC-JBC (D.N.J.), Shapiro Haber & Urmy is the lead counsel representing a class of owners and lessees of certain model year Volvo XC90s, asserting claims against Volvo for consumer deception and breach of warranty relating to Volvo's deceptive marketing of its XC90 vehicles as being compatible with Android Auto. Shapiro Haber & Urmy successfully defeated an attempt at the dismissal of the case on the pleadings, resulting in an important decision relating to the pleading standards for consumer deceptions claims, the requirements of substantive state consumer protection law, and defense strategies of "picking off" class representatives. Levine v. Volvo Cars of N. Am., LLC, No. 18-cv-03760, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145525 (D.N.J. Aug. 12, 2022).

Aspinall v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc.

In Aspinall v. Philip Morris Cos., Shapiro Haber & Urmy represented plaintiffs in a class action against Philip Morris. The suit was brought under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, M.G.L. c. 93A, and sought to recover damages from defendants on behalf of all persons who purchased Marlboro Light cigarettes in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The case alleged that by using words such as “Light” and “Lowered Tar and Nicotine” on the packaging of Marlboro Lights, defendants falsely represented to purchasers that the cigarettes contained and delivered lower levels of tar and nicotine to human smokers than did regular cigarettes. In October of 2001, the Superior Court certified the case as a class action. Shapiro Haber & Urmy successfully argued against defendants’ appeal from the class certification decision, which was affirmed by the Supreme Judicial Court in August of 2004, Aspinall v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc., 442 Mass. 381 (2004). The firm also successfully prevailed, before both the Superior Court and the Supreme Judicial Court, against Philip Morris’ argument that a consumer’s claims under c. 93A were preempted by federal law and the actions of the Federal Trade Commission. Aspinall v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc., 453 Mass. 431 (2009). On February 19, 2016, after a five-week trial, the Court found that Philip Morris violated c. 93A, and awarded statutory damages plus prejudgment interest, totaling $15 million.

You can read the Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Class Action Complaint by clicking here, and the Defendants' Answers to the Complaint by clicking here.

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).

Following a five week trial in late 2015, the Court found that by making health reassurance claims about Marlboro Lights, Philip Morris engaged in willful and knowing violations of the Massachusetts consumer protection laws. The Court awarded the Class damages in the statutory of $4,942,500, plus prejudgment interest calculated at the rate of 12% per year starting on November 25, 1998.  To read the Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law please click here.

Lee v. Conagra Brands, Inc.

In Lee v. Conagra Brands, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-11042-RGS (D. Mass.), Shapiro Haber & Urmy represented a class of consumers under the Massachusetts consumer protection Act for claims arising from Conagra's deceptive marketing of Wesson Oil as "100% Natural," when the oil in fact contained genetically modified organisms. Shapiro Haber & Urmy successfully appealed the district court's dismissal of those claims, obtaining a landmark decision from the First Circuit holding that claims relating to “natural” advertising are not preempted by federal law and clarifying the applicable pleading standard for injury and damages under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. Lee v. Conagra Brands, Inc., 958 F.3d 70 (1st Cir. 2020). The case settled upon remand. 

Smith v. Keurig

In Smith v. Keurig, No. 4:18-cv-06690-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Shapiro Haber & Urmy represents a certified nationwide class of consumers who purchased Keurig coffee pods deceptively marketed and labeled as recyclable. The case concerns cutting-edge issues involving the intersection of federal regulation and state consumer protection law. After defeating a motion to dismiss in a related action, Shapiro Haber & Urmy helped procure a $10 million, non-reversionary cash settlement for Keurig consumers, for which the district court recently granted final approval.

Crane v. Sexy Hair Concepts

In Crane v. Sexy Hair Concepts, LLC, No. 17-10300-FDS (D. Mass.), Shapiro Haber & Urmy was the lead counsel representing a nationwide class of consumers who purchased Sexy Hair shampoos and conditioners that were deceptively marketed as being free of sulfates and salts. Shapiro Haber & Urmy defeated an attempt to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims, resulting in a decision that affirmed important principles of consumer protection law under the Massachusetts consumer protection statute. Crane v. Sexy Hair Concepts, LLC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220112 (D. Mass. Oct. 10, 2017). After Shapiro Haber & Urmy obtained that favorable decision, the case settled for a non-reversionary cash settlement of $2.33 million. 

Munsell v. Colgate Palmolive Co

In Munsell v. Colgate Palmolive Co, No. 1:19-cv-12512-NMG (D. Mass.), Shapiro Haber & Urmy represented Massachusetts and Rhode Island consumers under the Massachusetts and Rhode Island consumer protection acts relating to Colgate and Tom's of Maine's deceptive marketing of Tom's of Maine toothpaste and deodorant products as "natural" when those products in fact contain artificial, synthetic or chemically processed ingredients. Shapiro Haber & Urmy defeated the defendants' motion to dismiss and continues to litigate the case on behalf of the proposed classes. Munsell v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88745 (D. Mass. May 20, 2020). 

Bank of America Breach of Contract

Shapiro Haber & Urmy represented putative classes of plaintiffs in litigation throughout the United States, charging Bank of America with breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in connection with the purchase of hazard and flood insurance in excess of the coverage amounts required by the mortgage agreements. In two of those cases, Kolbe v. Bank of America, 695 F.3d 111 (1st Cir. 2012), en banc review granted, and Lass v. Bank of America, 695 F.3d 129 (1st Cir. 2012), the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the district court’s orders dismissing the claims. Shapiro Haber & Urmy successfully settled the case for $30 million.

Massachusetts Dunkin Donuts Settlement

Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP represents classes in two separate lawsuits of all persons who ordered a baked good with butter, but received margarine or butter substitute, between June 24, 2012 and June 24, 2016 at a Dunkin Donuts store owned or operated by Defendants in Massachusetts. In both cases, the Court has entered an Order giving preliminary approval of a settlement and provisional class certification. To learn more about the proposed settlement, click here: Massachusetts Dunkin Donuts Settlement

Cadillac Monroney Stickers

Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP represents a class of purchasers of General Motors’ sales of cars with false statements on the new car window labels. On the new car window labels for several vehicle models, including the 2014 Cadillac CTS Sedan and the 2014 Cadillac CTS VSport, General Motors stated that the cars had achieved 5-star National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) safety ratings for three different crash tests. In fact, those model cars had not been crash tested by the NHTSA at all. General Motors has admitted that the new car window labels falsely represented that the cars had been crash tested and received 5-star NHTSA safety ratings when, in fact, they had not been crash tested at all. It has done so in letters to some Cadillac purchasers. Click here to see an example of that letter.

Shapiro Haber & Urmy has brought a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of people who purchased General Motors cars with false new car window labels. That action is entitled Carriuolo v. General Motors Company, No. 14-61429. Click here to see the Class Action Complaint in that case. The District Court certified a class of Florida purchasers of the 2014 Cadillac CTS Sedans, and the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has affirmed the certification of the class.

If you purchased a 2014 Cadillac, we would welcome the opportunity to speak with you, regardless of where you live. There would be no cost or obligation on your part in speaking with us. Please call Patrick Vallely or Edward Haber at (617) 439-3939, e-mail us at shu@shulaw.com, or click here to contact us through our website.

Fraley v. Facebook Settlement

Shapiro Haber & Urmy is representing Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood (CCFC), a non-profit organization named as a cy pres recipient in the Settlement Agreement in Fraley v. Facebook, a class action lawsuit alleging that Facebook used members’ likenesses and names without consent – including minors between ages 13 and 17. 

After Shapiro Haber & Urmy conducted an independent review of the settlement, CCFC determined that the settlement is “in direct violation of [its] mission to help parents raise healthy families by limiting commercial access to children.”  CCFC then took the unprecedented step of rejecting the cy pres award and supporting the brief filed by Public Citizen on behalf of minors objecting to the settlement.

In an amicus letter filed with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, CCFC states that “this settlement is bad for children because it provides a release of liability without forcing Facebook to make any real changes that would protect children from the commercial use of their names and images” and “authorizes Facebook to continue to violate laws in seven states that provide greater protections for minors.” CCFC urges the Court to reject the settlement in hopes that the parties “negotiate an agreement that would really protect minors.”

Further details on the Fraley v. Facebook case and CCFC’s objections can be found in recent articles by The Consumerist, the New York Times, and CCFC’s press release.

Force-Placed or Lender-Placed Insurance

Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP is currently prosecuting numerous putative class actions against Bank of America, N.A. in connection with its practices of requiring borrowers to maintain more flood insurance on their homes than required by the terms of their mortgages or deeds of trust as well as allegations that Bank of America unlawfully profits from its force-placed insurance practices.  Working together with other law firms, Shapiro Haber & Urmy currently represents borrowers in the following putative class actions against Bank of America:

Insurance Arbitration Cases

Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP is prosecuting a consumer class action on behalf of all persons who received arbitration awards against seven major auto insurance companies operating in Massachusetts in connection with underinsured, uninsured and third-party bodily injury motorist claims. The plaintiffs challenge the insurance companies' failure to pay interest from the date of the arbitration awards to the date that the insurance company paid the awards, and seek to recover the unpaid interest. In addition, the action seeks to recover triple damages and attorneys' fees under the Massachusetts' consumer protection statute.  On February 25, 2009, the Superior Court held that insurance companies have a common law duty to pay post-award interest on arbitration awards from the date of the award to the date of payment.  On March 3, 2010, the Court also ruled, among other things, that the applicable rate of interest on arbitration awards is 12% per annum.

Plaintiffs have reached settlements with six of the seven insurance companies.  The Court has granted final approval to the settlements.  As part of the settlements, these insurance companies have agreed to pay post-arbitration award interest to class members at 12% per annum, plus prejudgment interest on that amount.  In addition, the settling companies have agreed to implement policies going forward whereby they will pay post-arbitration award interest at 12% per annum on all arbitration awards going forward except in a few specific situations.

Plaintiffs and their counsel continue vigorously to prosecute the case against Defendant Hanover Insurance Company.  On May 21, 2012, the Court denied Hanover’s motion for a ruling that it could not be liable under Massachusetts’ consumer protection statute for its failure to pay post-arbitration award interest.  In doing so, the Court ruled that the “evidence strongly suggests that Hanover had a company-wide policy of not paying interest, knowing that the amount at stake for any individual claim was too small to be pursued in court.”  On June 28, 2012, the Court certified a class of all persons who obtained arbitration awards against Hanover Insurance Company or Hanover insureds under Massachusetts automobile insurance policies from March 26, 2003 to the present, including uninsured, underinsured or third-party bodily injury claims.  Excluded from the class are any persons who were paid post-award interest at the time they were paid their arbitration awards. 

Overdraft Fees Litigation

Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP is counsel in a putative class action case filed in the Central Division of the District of Utah against Zions First National Bank and its parent Zions Bancorporation. The case alleges that Zions First National Bank and seven other subsidiaries of Zions Bancorporation (Amegy Bank of Texas, California Bank & Trust Co., The Commerce Bank of Oregon, The Commerce Bank of Washington, National Bank of Arizona, Nevada State Bank, and Vectra Bank Colorado) charged and collected excessive overdraft fees in connection with debit card transactions, manipulating the order in which credits and debit card charges were posted to customer accounts so as to maximize the number of overdrafts charged against the accounts, thereby increasing the overdraft fees collected from customers. 

If you now have or have in the past had accounts with any of these banks, we would be interested in speaking with you about your experiences with them. Please call us at (617) 439-3939 or (800) 287-8119.

Excessive Fees Charged for Insufficient Funds Checks

Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP is co-counsel in a case filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Re$ubmitIt, LLC, BSG Financial, LLC, and BankAtlantic.  The class action complaint alleges that Defendants improperly and unlawfully took $50 directly from Plaintiff’s bank account, without Plaintiff’s authorization or consent, as a purported “fee” for re-submitting to Plaintiff’s bank account a check that had been returned due to insufficient funds.

On August 7, 2012, the Judge in this case denied the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, finding that the Plaintiff’s Class Action Complaint contains plausible allegations that would be violations of the law if proven at trial.

If you have been charged a fee by Re$ubmitIt or any other company because you gave a store or other business a check which was returned due to insufficient funds (in addition to the fee charged by your bank), we would like to hear from you.  You may have a claim against the company that charged you that fee, or against a company like Re$ubmitIt that took the money out of your bank account.  Call us at (617) 439-3939 or click here to contact us through our website.

 

 

 

Shapiro Haber & Urmy also represented consumers and business owners by prosecuting consumer class action suits against: 

 Seven Massachusetts automobile insurance companies for nonpayment of interest on arbitration awards; 

 Shell Vacation homes in connection with the sale of timeshares; 

 Starbucks for misrepresentation and overcharges in the sale of coffee; 

 Earth Friendly products for misrepresenting its products as “100% Natural” or “All Natural”; 

 Building Products of Canada for selling defective roofing shingles; 

 Various health maintenance organizations for failure to pay claims of non-participating medical service providers for medical services in a timelyfashion; 

 Zions First National Bank for charging and collecting excessive overdraft fees; 

Re$ubmitIt, LLC for unauthorized fees charged for insufficient funds checks; 

 U-Haul for attempted price-fixing in violation of the Massachusetts consumer protection statute; 

Wozo, LLC for deceptive internet marketing; 

 American Medical Security, Inc. for unfair insurance practices; 

 NVIDIA for the sale of defective products in violation of state consumer protection statutes; 

 Lenovo for the sale of defective products in violation of state consumer protection statutes;  

 TJX Companies, Inc. and Princeton Review related to the theft of personal and financial information of customers;  

 E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Company for the potential of serious health hazards resulting from the manufacturing, sales and advertising of “Teflon”;  

 Gillette for engaging in deceptive marketing practices with respect to its M3P razor and blades.