Audet & Partners, LLP

Category: Practice Areas

Neuriva Lawsuit Alleges False Advertising

Neuriva Lawsuit

Audet & Partners, LLP is investigating an increasing number of consumer complaints that have surfaced alleging false health benefits promoted by Schiff Vitamins, the manufacturer of Neuriva and Neurina Plus, two products included in a category of supplements commonly referred to as “brain boosters.”  Schiff claims that Neuriva heightens brain performance in key areas including learning, memory, focus and concentration.  While Schiff has asserted that Neuriva may boost a specific neuroprotein within the body, it has been questioned wither the protein can move beyond the blood-brain barrier in the body.  To the extent that this penetration is simply not possible, the “brain boost” asserted by the makers of Neuriva may be misleading.

The Internet is replete with complaints by Neuriva users who question the purported benefits of the supplement.

Neuriva Complaint 1

Neuriva Complaint 2

Neuriva Complaint 3

If you have purchased Neuriva manufactured by Schiff Vitamins based on promotion of  “brain benefits” similar to those described above, you are urged to contact an attorney at Audet & Partners, LLP for a free, confidential case evaluation to determine whether you may have a false advertising claim as part of a Neuriva lawsuit.  You can contact us either by completing and submitting the intake form on the right side of this page or by giving us a call at (800) 965-1461.

Infant Formula Lawsuit Targets Similac and Enfamil

Infant Formula Lawsuit

Audet and Partners, LLP is investigating claims as part of an infant formula lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of infant formula made from cow’s milk, including Similac and Enfamil.  An increasing number of studies suggest that use of these formulas may give rise to an extremely dangerous condition in infants called necrotizing enterocolitis (“NEC”).  Additionally, investigation of the development and marketing of these products suggests that the manufacturers may have known of this danger to premature babies and deliberately withheld this information from the public.

NEC is a bacterial infection in newborns that can manifest in the intestinal walls of the infant and ultimately result in the decay of the intestinal walls.  This decay, in turn, can leave infants vulnerable to highly aggressive bacteria that can ultimately result in sepsis and death in a significant percentage of premature infants stricken with NEC.

If you have purchased Similac (manufactured by Abbott Laboratories Inc.) and/or Enfamil (manufactured by Mead Johnson Nutrition) and given either of these formulas to your infant, you are urged to immediately contact an infant formula lawsuit attorney at Audet & Partners, LLP for a free, confidential consultation.  You can reach us by completing and submitting the inquiry form on the right side of this page, or by giving us a call at (800) 965-1461.

Graco Child Booster Seat Lawsuit

child booster seat lawsuit

Audet and Partners, LLP is investigating an increasing number of consumer complaints as part of a child booster seat lawsuit against Graco.  This class action lawsuit alleges that Graco, a Division of Newell Brands, DTC provided misleading information to consumers regarding the safety of Graco’s TurboBooster Highback Car Seat and its AFFIX Youth Booster Seat.  In short, the company heavily marketed these seats at safe for children weighing as little as thirty pounds.  Widely accepted scientific information, however, has suggested for some time that forward-facing booster seats are unsafe for any child weighing less than forty pounds.  Graco products are distributed through big-box retailers including Walmart and Target as well as online platforms including Amazon and its own website at gracobaby.com.

In addition, information suggests that Graco may have also falsely represented the side-impact safety of its Booster Seats.

The defects alleged in Graco’s Booster Seats as part of this child booster seat lawsuit are thought to have contributed to many documented and perhaps undocumented injuries to children using these Booster Seats who were involved in side-impact accidents.

If you purchased a Graco TurboBooster and/or AFFIX Youth Booster seat based at least in part of the company’s representation of its safety for children under thirty pounds, you are urged to immediately contact Audet and Partners, LLP for a free, confidential case evaluation.  You can reach us by completing and submitting the inquiry form on the right side of this page or by giving us a call at (800) 965-1461.

Fortnite User Class Action Against Apple: Protecting Gaming Rights | Audet & Partners, LLP

Fortnite User Class Action

Are you a Fortnite player and use an iPhone?

As you may be aware, Apple Inc. has advised Epic Games, Inc., the owner of Fortnite, that Apple will soon be removing Fortnite from the Apple App store.  As a result, you and other Fortnite players may be unable to update or use Fortnite in the near future thus denying you the ability to play Fortnite on mobile devices that run on Apple’s iOS.

Epic Games has taken affirmative action against Apple by initiating a lawsuit in Federal Court accusing Apple of a wide range of anticompetitive practices that for years has driven up the price of apps, including Fortnite, on mobile devices using Apple’s iOS.  By requiring Epic to distribute Fortnite for mobile devices solely through Apple’s App store, Apple has been able to extract a 30% premium from app developers who effectively have no choice but to accede to Apple’s terms.  The net impact of this restriction is that the price of Fortnite for consumers has become artificially inflated for years.

Now, Apple has announced a more aggressive response to Epic by announcing that it will soon delete Fortnite from the App Store.

If you have downloaded Fortnite on to a mobile device running on Apple’s iOS, you are urged to contact Audet & Partners, LLP for a free, confidential case evaluation.  To contact us, lease complete the inquiry form on the right side of this page, or give us a call at (800) 965-1461.

Dentastix Class Action Lawsuit Investigation

Audet & Partners, LLP is investigating claims that may form the basis of a class action lawsuit against Mars Petcare, parent company of Pedigree, the manufacturer of Dentastix dog treats.  For some time, Pedigree has been marketing Dentastix as facilitating “up to 80% tartar reduction” in dogs who chew Dentastix.  The National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, however, has issued a public statement disputing the claimed efficacy of Dentastix.  The NAD has stated that in clinical tests, the actual reduction of tartar buildup in dogs was approximately 47%.

The NAD statement claims that Pedigree essentially misstated the results of  clinical trial undertaken by Summit Ridge Farms, the results of which had suggested a mean reduction in tartar buildup of 46.7% over a 28-day trial.  The NAD claims that Pedigree then undertook a post-hoc analysis of the Summit Ridge study results and reclassified the test subjects in a way that allegedly overstated the effectiveness of Dentastix chews in reducing tartar buildup.

The claims set forth in the opinion recently issued by the NAD may give rise to a Dentastix class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Dentastix for false advertising and other causes of action.  If you have purchased Dentastix and given the product to your dog, you are urged to contact us for a free, confidential case evaluation.  You can call us at (800) 965-1461, complete and submit our online case inquiry form on the right side of this page, or e-mail class action attorney Michael McShane at mmcshane@audetlaw.com.

Prison Inmate Class Action Allowed to Proceed in Federal Court

A lawsuit brought on behalf of more than 30,000 Arizona prison inmates has been allowed to proceed as a class action by a Federal court judge.  The class action lawsuit, filed more than two years ago, has alleged substandard medical care provided by the Arizona Department of Corrections that has led to serious illness and death of inmates in a way that rises to the level of “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Federal constitution.

Attorneys for the Department of Correction had attempted to defeat class action certification by arguing that the nature of these claims would require the court to conduct an individualized inquiry of each specific claim, and thus the claims are not appropriate for class treatment.  In rejecting this argument, Judge Stephen Reinhardt, writing for the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, held that rather than focused on individual treatment, the lawsuit arguably involves systemic failures of the Department of Corrections that may have directly led to the substandard medical care and injuries in question.

Specific allegations being brought on behalf of the Arizona inmate population include blatant denials of health care, improper isolation policies, and spending reductions during a two-year period at a time when the inmate population either remained constant or had increased.

If you, or one to whom you are close, have received inadequate medical treatment while an inmate at a penal institution, you are urged to contact a class action lawyer at Audet & Partners, LLP by calling (800) 965-1461, or by completing and submitting our confidential inquiry form on the right side of this page for a free consultation and case evaluation.

Text Spam Class Action Lawsuit Proceeds Against Payday Loan King

A judge in Nevada has granted class action certification in the lawsuit against Payday King Carey V. Brown, of Credit Payment Services, for violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act with spam-texts.

Brown reportedly got his title as the “payday king” by operating a network of payday lending companies including Credit Payment Solutions, MyCashNow.com, PayDayMax.com and DiscountAdvances.com, according to the TimesFreePress.com.  Brown and his companies are now facing a class action lawsuit for allegedly sending thousands of spam text messages offering high-interest payday loans.  The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) prohibits companies from sending unsolicited marketing texts.  Violation of the TCPA carries statutory penalties between $500 and $1500 per text.

The class action lawsuit claims that Credit Payment Solutions, and its affiliated co-defendant companies, did not identify themselves in the content of the spam-texts.  The texts contain links to different payday loan websites operated by the defendants where unsuspecting consumers can apply for a short-term loan.  “It is only after a consumer takes the bait and applies for a short-term loan at the website [from the link in the text] that the true advertisers and beneficiaries of the text messages are revealed,” the TimesFreePress.com quotes from the lawsuit.

The defendants claim they shouldn’t be liable to individual consumers for the texts, presumably arguing that the texts originated from their affiliated marketing companies, not the payday loan companies or Brown himself.  David Hutton, the attorney representing Brown’s companies, said that they only send out “one text message to one client.”  However, their marketing affiliate, Leadpile, has blogged about the effectiveness of SMS lead generation (spam text message) illustrating in a detailed chart how a single spam text message can be sent to thousands of cell phones to generate more than 6,000 visits to a company’s website. Brown also allegedly argues that his companies are not subject to US law because he keeps his website servers offshore.

The law firm of Audet and Partners, LLP is currently investigating consumer complaints about spam-texts and violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  Eligible claimants may be entitled to damages under the law, which provides between $500 and $1500 per unsolicited spam text.  If you believe you have received unlawful spam texts, please contact one of Audet and Partners, LLP experienced spam-text lawyers at (800) 965-1461 or you can fill out the confidential case inquiry form on our website.

Source:  Smith, Ellis (2014, March 28); Retrieved from: http://timesfreepress.com/news/2014/mar/28/lawsuit-against-payday-king-for-spam-texts-gains/

 

da Vinci Surgical Robot Investor Lawsuit Alleges Misleading Statements by Intuitive Surgical

A lawsuit in California claims Intuitive Surgical, Inc., the maker of the da Vinci Surgical System, misled shareholders about defects with the robotic device, which has been linked to over 70 deaths and numerous other injuries.

The lawsuit, brought by the Public School Teachers’ Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago, claims that Intuitive Surgical made false statements about the da Vinci system’s safety and misled shareholders about internally-known safety defects in the system that were injuring patients.  By concealing this information and misleading investors about the device’s safety, the shareholders claim Intuitive Surgical artificially inflated the company’s stock price over a number of years.  Once the negative information came to light, following an FDA investigation and numerous consumer lawsuits that, the stock price fell dramatically, revealing the fraud committed on shareholders.

The da Vinci surgical system was aggressively marketed to doctors and hospitals for years, securing its regular use in patient surgeries.  However, patients who underwent da Vinci surgeries complained of a variety of injuries including burns and perforations to internal organs occurring while the system’s tiny instruments were inside the patients’ bodies.  Intuitive Surgical allegedly underreported these injuries to the FDA.  However, as injury reports increased, the FDA began investigating the company in 2013 and discovered that Intuitive had received hundreds of reports of injuries caused by defects in the system as far back as 2009.  Despite stringent FDA rules requiring a device manufacturer to report such defects, Intuitive allegedly failed to properly report the da Vinci problems to the FDA.  The FDA also surveyed doctors as part of its investigation, which revealed further problems with the da Vinci system related to a lack of consistent surgeon training on the use of the system. The company also faces numerous product liability lawsuits from injured patients.

The da Vinci robotic system is sophisticated surgical device that uses a 3D high-definition camera and miniature instruments designed to allow doctors to make fewer, smaller and more precise incisions when performing surgery.  Despite being referred to as a “robotic” device, a doctor still performs the surgery.  The da Vinci system is a sophisticated instrument designed with “joint wristed” technology meant to give a doctor increased vision and control when performing surgeries.  It costs between $1 million and $2.3 million dollars for the equipment.

Essentially, the shareholder class action lawsuit accuses Intuitive Surgical defrauding investors by failing to properly disclose the safety defects associated with the da Vinci system and the incidence of patient injury reports.  By intentionally underreporting or concealing information about the system’s defects, Intuitive Surgical not only harmed patients, but also harmed its investors.  Rather than fully disclosing this information to the FDA and to its shareholders, Intuitive Surgical instead focused on increasing its profits.  The lawsuit also alleges that senior Intuitive executives also sold hundreds of thousands of their own personal shares, profiting handsomely, just before the negative information became public and the stock fell.

How Do I Get More Information?  

To learn more about da Vinci surgical robotic lawsuits, visit Audet and Partners website at http://www.http://davinci-surgical-robot-lawsuit.com.

If you, or a loved one, have experienced problems that may be related to a robotic surgery, contact the experienced attorneys at Audet and Partners, LLP for a free evaluation of your legal options.  Call us at (800) 965-1461 or fill out the confidential case inquiry form on the right side of this web page.

*Source: Markham, Isobel (2014, March 6); Retrieved from http://www.americanlawyer.com/id=1202645882264/Intuitive-Surgical-Shareholders-File-Suit-Over-System-Defects

Newer