Big Pharma Company Settles with Idaho for $1.7 Million

Pills, by Flickr user "higlu", licensed via Creative Commons.Watson, which is among the top five generic drug companies in the world recently agreed to pay $1.7 million to the state of Idaho to settle allegations of consumer fraud. The consumer, in this case, being the government. Lawrence Wasden, the Idaho Attorney General, filed lawsuits in 2007 against various pharmaceutical companies, Watson included. These lawsuits were meant to recover taxpayer money, claiming the pharmaceutical companies earned extra money unlawfully by reporting an inflated price for their generic drugs.

Read more

Oil Refiners Settle “Hot Fuel” Lawsuit

Oil Refinery in Nova Scotia, from Flickr user Iguanasan, licensed via Creative Commons“Hot Fuel” sounds like the title of an awesome action movie.  I’m thinking Speed meets Under Siege, set on an oil tanker.  I’m kind of upset that the phrase is wasted on a much more boring concept.  Nevertheless, oil refineries recently heard “hot fuel” as often as they’ll ever want to after getting bitchslapped in the courtroom by science.  They’ll have to pony up $21.6 million total to resolve claims in this hot fuel suit, with the money to be divided between the 50 retailers across the country who brought charges against them.  So what is this “hot fuel” garbage, anyway?

Read more

Facebook to Pay $10 Million in Sponsored Story Settlement

Facebook like, by Owen W. Brown at owenwbrown.com, licensed via Creative Commons.A proposed settlement between Facebook and a class of litigants has the social networking company paying $10 million to charity.  The issue at hand was whether Facebook violated California law by using its users’ names and profile pictures to advertise products without paying them and without giving them any way to opt out.  With its “sponsored stories”, users’ “likes” of products were unwittingly posted across their friends’ news feeds.  Companies would pay way more for these stories than a traditional advertisement, with Mark Zuckerberg saying they were the “Holy Grail of advertising”, akin to a word of mouth personal recommendation.  So, if you clicked “like” on a page about bananas, you’d be shown on your friends’ feeds as “John Doe likes bananas, go buy one here”.  Or, in the case of Nick Bergas, your face would be endorsing a 55-gallon drum of personal lubricant.  His story accentuates the main legal problem at issue here:  what if you don’t care about a product you’re shown endorsing?  Worse, what if you don’t want to be shown endorsing anything at all?

Read more

Apple Settles Embarrassing False Advertising Case

Bullet through an apple, by Flickr user "nebarnix", licensed via Creative Commons.While you were gawking at the new kind-of-better-in-some-ways-I-guess Macbook Pro at this week’s Apple Worldwide Developers Conference, Apple’s law team was quietly paying out a settlement to a Australian government regulators.  Apple shipped their newest 4G-compatible iPhones and -Pads to Australia, where ravenous consumers quickly snatched them up.  There was one catch: the electronics did not actually work with any LTE networks in the country.  Luckily, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission was ready to slap Apple around with a lawsuit, alleging that Apple knowingly advertised this whole 4G business despite being well aware that the technology wouldn’t work.  Sensing an uphill court battle, Apple quickly settled the case (if I had to guess, I’d say it was a pretty clever tactic to hide the negative press among all the buzz for their WWDC event).  The outcome: Apple must pay a fine of $2.25 million to the Australian government, and will also probably have to pick up the tab for $300,000 worth of legal fees.  Though they aren’t required to, Apple is also offering refunds to customers who felt cheated.  What a nice company.

Read more

Citizens Pays $132.5 Million for Overdraft Practices

Greed, by Flickr user "las - initially", licensed via Creative Commons.Citizens Financial Group, a bank based in Rhode Island, was accused of unfair business practices in its calculation of overdraft fees for its poorer customers.  Instead of processing transactions in the chronological order they were created, the bank elected to process them from largest to smallest.  This increased the likeliness and amount of overdraft fees, which are levied when a customer spends more money than he/she has in the bank.

Read on to find out exactly how these customers were ripped off