Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP
Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP
866-540-5505 877-891-9880

Dedicated Client Advocacy

Consumer Fraud Archives

Facebook Users Granted Class Certification in Facial Recognition Suit

On April 16, 2018, the Honorable James Donato, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, granted class certification to a group of Illinois Facebook users ("Plaintiffs") who claim that the social media company, Facebook, Inc. ("Facebook" or "Defendant"), scanned images of their faces as part of its "Tag Suggestions" feature without first obtaining their consent, in violation of Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA").

Fifth Third Bank Allegedly Charges Double Fees for ATM Usage

A proposed class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on March 29, 2018 against Fifth Third Bank ("Bank") by a consumer, Carnell Smith ("Smith"), who claims the Bank fails to properly disclose that it charges consumers out-of-network ATM fees for checking their account balances, among other charges that are not disclosed openly.

Allergan, Senju, & Kyorin To Pay $9 Million to Settle Product Hopping Suit

On February 16, 2018, Allergan Inc. ("Allergan"), Senju Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., and Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. (collectively, "Defendants") announced a proposed settlement in which they will pay Hartig Drug Co. Inc. ("Plaintiff") $9 million to end a class action over alleged "product hopping" related to eye care products, Zymar and Zymaxid. Product hopping is a term used to describe the practice of pharmaceutical companies making modest drug reformulations that offer little or no therapeutic advantages in an effort to obstruct generic competitors and preserve monopoly profits on a patented drug. In 2012, the Federal Trade Commission filed an amicus brief stating that product hopping undermines state and federal laws that encourage generic competition and explained that the conduct can be the basis for an antitrust lawsuit.[1]

Whistleblower could score big in health care false billing case

We stressed a few fundamental points regarding qui tam whistleblower lawsuits that individuals file on behalf of the federal government under the U.S. False Claims Act in a recent post. We noted in our January 31 entry that such filings seem to be spiking these days. Moreover, "they feature in stories involving federal agencies and entities of virtually every type and dimension."

Military spotlighted in False Claims Act whistleblower recovery

We noted a clear reality concerning fraud claims commenced under the U.S. False Claims Act in a recent blog post at the pro-consumer website of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah (with offices in Connecticut and several other states spanning the country).

False Claims Act: Regulators busy, wrongdoers not in short supply

The U.S. False Claims Act, which addresses fraudulent claims against federal entities, has clearly stood the test of time. The legislation dates back to Abraham Lincoln's presidency and is still routinely invoked in cases probing civil and criminal wrongdoing in the fraud realm.

What it’s really like to be in a class-action lawsuit

“Someone ought to put a stop to that,” you may be thinking. Perhaps a company is selling appliances with dangerous defects. Maybe a manufacturing plant dumped chemical waste into the town’s water supply. Whatever the situation may be, people are suffering unfair consequences. It might be time for a class-action lawsuit.

Store credit policy crosses the threshold into deception

Have you returned a product back to the store – only to find you can only receive store credit? This can be frustrating, especially if you don’t want to continue shopping there, but there’s nothing you can do to change the policy.

Judge Rejects Keurig's Motion to Dismiss In K-Cup Monopoly Suits

On Wednesday, November 29, 2017, Judge Vernon S. Broderick, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, rejected Keurig Green Mountain Inc.'s ("Keurig") motion to dismiss multiple lawsuits against Keurig and its parent company, Green Mountain Coffee Roasters Inc. (collectively, "Defendants") brought by purchasers of K-Cup coffee pods. The lawsuits allege Keurig's coffee maker freezes out competitors' coffee cups as part of an anti-competitive scheme.