Pulp Reality at Walmart? If this is true, it has to
be some kind of new low—even for Walmart. The discount retail behemoth
got hit with a proposed consumer fraud class action this week, over
claims its in-house brand of allegedly pure grated parmesan cheese
contains a significant amount of fillers such as wood pulp. OMG.
So, in the spirit of, well, less is more—let’s cut through the filler
and get to the allegations. Filed by Marc Moschetta of Dutchess County,
New York, the Walmart parmesan cheese complaint
states that the labels on Walmart’s Great Value brand grated parmesan
cheese contains 100 percent parmesan cheese, and is false. The cheese is
sold at Walmart stores across the US.
Are you sitting down? According to the suit, independent lab testing
on the cheese product has shown it contains “significant quantities of
adulterants and fillers” and between 7 percent to 10 percent of the
cheese is made of cellulose, a filler and anti-clumping agent derived
from wood pulp.
“Defendant makes only one marketing representation on the label: the
product is ‘100%’ grated parmesan cheese [and] consumers, including
plaintiff, reasonably rely on the label and believe defendant’s
statement that the product consists of ‘100%’ parmesan cheese,” court
documents state. “Because the product does in fact contain fillers and
substitutes, the ‘100%’ parmesan claim is literally false and is also
misleading to consumers.”
Moschetta stated that Walmart’s sale of the grated cheese was
executed through deceptive marketing, labeling and advertising and the
retailer has violated New York business laws, various consumer
protection laws in a majority of the contiguous US, breached an implied
warranty and benefited from unjust enrichment.
The complaint is seeking certification of both a nationwide class and
a New York subclass of consumers and that Walmart be ordered to pay
unspecified treble damages and punitive damages.
The case is Moschetta v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., number 7:16-cv-01377,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
O Lord, won’t you Give me a Clean Diesel Car? Mercedes, seemingly the only automotive maker not be sued for defective airbags, ignition switches and/or uncontrolled acceleration—to name but a few issues among the litany of defective automotive
class actions currently winding their way through the courts, found
itself on the end of a consumer fraud class action lawsuit this week.
What for, you ask? Allegations the company knowingly programs its
Clean Diesel vehicles to emit illegally high levels of nitrogen oxide.
Specifically, the Mercedes emissions lawsuit claims that like Volkswagen defeat devices certain
Mercedes models contain a device that causes the vehicles to violate US
emissions standards when run at cooler temperatures, making them less
environmentally friendly than advertised.
The lawsuit was filed by a Mercedes owner in Illinois, who claims the
automaker uses the device in its BlueTec cars to turn off a system
meant to reduce nitrogen oxide in its exhaust. The law firm representing
the plaintiff said in a statement that on-road testing had shown
Mercedes’s Clean Diesel cars produced average on-road NOx emissions that
were 19 times above the U.S. standard, with some instantaneous readings
as high as 65 times more than the US limit.
According to the complaint, the device in Mercedes’s diesel models
turns off pollution controls at temperatures below 50 degrees Fahrenheit
(10 Celsius), allowing the autos to violate emissions standards.
Further, according to a study done by independent testing agency TNO
for the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, in
real-world testing, the Mercedes C-Class 220 emits more nitrogen oxide
than measured in laboratory results.
“Mercedes never disclosed to consumers that Mercedes diesels with
BlueTEC engines may be ‘clean’ diesels when it is warm, but are ‘dirty’
diesels when it is not,” according to the complaint. “Mercedes never
disclosed that, when the temperature drops below 50 degrees, it
prioritizes engine power and profits over people.”
The lawsuit also contends that even if Mercedes is able to make the
cars compliant with emissions standards, those who drive them will
suffer harm because the vehicles won’t perform as promised or
advertised.
The plaintiff is seeking to represent a nationwide class of includes
all US-based residents and entities that bought or leased an affected
vehicle as of this month, and a court order compelling Mercedes to
recall the affected models or replace them for free, in addition to
unspecified damages.
Among the enumerated models are Mercedes’s ML320 and 350 sport utility vehicles, its E- and S-Class cars, and GLE crossovers.
The lawsuit is Lynevych v. Mercedes-Benz USA, U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey.
Top Settlements
Pyrrhic Victory for Talc Powder Ovarian Cancer Victim.
Here’s a stunner—in more ways than one—and it’s just the beginning for
J&J. This week saw $75 million in damages awarded against the
company in a lawsuit suit alleging the talcum powder Jacqueline Fox used
caused her to develop ovarian cancer.
Fox claimed that for over 35 years she had used baby powder made by
J&J and another talc product for feminine hygiene until she was
diagnosed with ovarian cancer. She passed away at the age of 62, on
October 6, 2015.
Her case was heard by a jury in St. Louis, Missouri, and is just one
of more than 60 cases consolidated into a single suit alleging cancer
caused by talcum powder.
During the trial, Fox’s attorney presented a document which revealed
J&J knew their talcum powder was causing cancer. The letter, dated
from 1997, was by a former J&J consultant and it warned the
responses by the company to findings from no less than nine scientific
studies could result in the talc industry being compared to the
cigarette industry.
While the jury found 10-2 against J&J on claims of failure to
warn, negligence and conspiracy, it did not find talc manufacturer
Imerys Talc America Inc, another defendant, liable.
Another woman is scheduled to go to trial on April 11, 2016.
Attorneys for Fox said that J&J is currently facing hundreds of
lawsuits over talcum powder use.
Lawsuits have been filed against some talc companies alleging talc
powder contains asbestos and consumers were not adequately warned about
the risk of asbestos
in talc powder. Although home talcum products are supposed to be
asbestos-free, there are concerns some talcum products still contain
asbestos. Furthermore, it can take decades for exposure to asbestos
products to result in mesothelioma and other illnesses, meaning people
who were exposed in the 1970s may still be diagnosed with
asbestos-related illnesses.