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?Google+
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.Google+
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.Google+
Nutella, the hazelnut spread considered by some to be the immortality-inducing ambrosia of myth, was alleged in a class action lawsuit to not be as healthy as advertised. How anyone can believe that a product akin to a peanut-butter-chocolate lovechild is healthy is beyond me, but nevertheless, the company that makes it, Ferrero, now must pay out $4 per container in trust to anyone who bought their product over a four-year period. If you bought a jar of Nutella between Jan. 1, 2008 and Feb. 3, 2012, you’re entitled to recompense for up to five jars, or $20. A fund of $2.5 million will be set up by Ferrero to pay out these claims.
In addition to the monetary penalty, Ferrero agreed to change its advertising to remove any suggestions that Nutella is healthy. What used to say “An example of a tasty yet balanced breakfast” will now say “Turn a balanced breakfast into a tasty one.” Astute readers will note that these two phrases are not very different at all. The key distinction, though, is that the former slogan implied that Nutella is both tasty and balanced, while the new one only implies that Nutella adds some taste to an otherwise bland albeit healthy breakfast. Ignoring the fact that many Nutella aficionados eat it by the spoon as meal in itself, this new advertising will actually make little impact on the perception of Nutella as healthy. I don’t think Ferrero was actually fooling anybody with their previous slogan for the 100 calorie-per-tablespoon spread.
To find out how to file a claim on your own jar of fraudulently-advertised hazelnut butter, visit the official Nutella class action settlement website.
Groupon, the world’s largest purveyor of coupons, found itself in a bit of trouble recently regarding their products’ expiration dates. A lawsuit brought by Eli R. Johnson alleged illegal expiration date policies on Groupon’s coupons, putting the company’s very lifeblood in jeopardy. Johnson bought a coupon that expired after a few months. He brought suit after learning that Illinois law requires a minimum expiration date of five years for all gift certificates, including coupons. Apparently, the online giant, which operates across the entire country and Europe, didn’t bother to learn the nuances of consumer protection laws from state to state, leaving them vulnerable to lawsuits. Not even in Illinois, which is the jurisdiction of this lawsuit and, embarrassingly, Groupon’s own base of operations. Today’s legal settlement allows customers in certain states to redeem some coupons past their expiration date or, failing that, receive a full refund. Groupon has $8.5 million in a fund set aside for the latter option.
It’s tough to imagine that a company that deals in, say, cold medicine wouldn’t know about the laws affecting cold medicine across all of the states that it does business in. So too is it hard to believe that a company solely devoted to coupons wouldn’t know about coupon regulations. However, this is the same company that has been in the news for having trouble with their refund policy on their SEC filings. Add that to the current class action lawsuit about employee overtime pay and Groupon appears to be in some hot water as of late. The Wall Street Cheat Sheet has even described their current financial standing as an “implosion”. Harsh.