Class Action Roundup – February 6

What’s been happening in legal news this week? A lot, it turns out. It’s time for another ClassAction.org weekly roundup.

New York Attorney General Investigates Herbal Supplements, Finds Many Don’t Even Contain Plant DNA

Herbal supplements, such as ginseng, garlic and St. John’s Wort, are becoming increasingly popular. This growing popularity may have been what prompted the New York State Attorney General’s office to conduct tests on dietary supplements sold by four of the nation's largest retailers – Walmart, Target, Walgreens and GNC. The results, though, surprised everyone. In many cases, the pills didn’t actually contain the herb they were advertised as providing – and in some cases, not a single strand of plant DNA could be found. A cease and desist letter was immediately sent to the retailers ordering them to remove the products – but now, attorneys are investigating whether a class action lawsuit can be filed to seek compensation for the thousands of shoppers who’ve been misled.

Fines Aren’t Fine With Seattle Drivers

No one really likes toll roads – but drivers using Seattle’s 520 bridge seem to have extra cause for complaint. A class action lawsuit has been filed accusing the state of acting unconstitutionally after both the process for levying fines and the fine appeals process were transferred to the Department of Transport Authority. Multiple drivers have complained that the bureaucratic appeals process is burdensome and, crucially for the lawsuit, tilted in favor of the state. As The Seattle Times reports, this problem was foreseen five years ago by a judge, who warned at the time:

“Since the birth of our democracy, it has been well settled that government cannot take from its citizens without due process of law. In my view, it will only be a matter of time before an aggrieved citizen — and there will be many aggrieved citizens — brings a class-action lawsuit.”

It was a good warning that went unheeded – but the Department of Transport can’t hide any longer. The lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court for the State of Washington.

Are Uber Drivers Employees? Maybe.

Earlier this week, in our blog post about cases to watch in 2015, we highlighted ride-share company Uber as a prime target for more lawsuits. The company has faced several legal challenges already, and the latest case was filed to answer a single question: are Uber drivers employees or not? It’s an important question for the company and its drivers. If drivers are employees, they may be covered by federal and state minimum wage and overtime requirements, and Uber will find itself responsible for providing more compensation to its drivers. Last week, the LA Times reported that U.S. District Judge Edward Chen, hearing a class action lawsuit filed in San Francisco, has indicated that he’s not convinced by Uber’s current stance on its “independent contractor” drivers:

“The idea that Uber is simply a software platform, I don’t find that a very persuasive argument.”

As the report explains:

“The issue of independent contractors being misclassified is not unique to transport network companies such as Uber, Lyft and Sidecar. Just last year, port truckers in Los Angeles went on strike over their status as contractors, while FedEx has faced its drivers in court repeatedly over the last decade over a similar issue.”

The case will undoubtedly be closely watched and we will continue to give you updates as the litigation progresses.

Birchbox Hit With Suit Over Auto-Renewal

An online subscription service for high-end cosmetics is facing a class action lawsuit in California after allegedly violating state law by failing to properly disclose to shoppers the terms of its auto-renewal policy. The lawsuit comes after one shopper, plaintiff Tiffany Lapuebla, made a purchase in January 2013. She alleges that Birchbox charged her credit card without her affirmative consent to a monthly service and claims the company failed to provide her with information about how to cancel the subscription.

When’s A Caddy Not a Caddy? When He’s a Billboard, Suit Says

A multi-million dollar federal lawsuit has been filed against the PGA Tour by more than eighty professional caddies. The caddies, led by plaintiff Mike Hicks, claim they are unlawfully compelled to wear logos while being denied access to profits from advertising revenue. The claims are based on the fact that caddies – often overlooked in golf tournaments by fans and media alike – nevertheless appear on televised broadcasts standing next to players, offering “expertise on clubs, swing techniques and course topography, among other crucial aspects of competitive golf,” according to Golf.com. Are they being fairly paid, though? That’s what this suit hopes to sort out.

Could P.F. Chang’s Lose Out to Gluten Intolerance “Disability”?

P.F. Chang’s is facing a lawsuit over its policy of charging $1 more for certain gluten-free items. Apparently, despite the chain’s award-winning approach to allergy awareness and the fact it has an entire menu of gluten-free dishes, charging the extra dollar could put it at odds with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The suit quotes Title III of the Act, which states:

“No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation.”

But is gluten intolerance a disability? And even if it isn’t, is P.F. Chang’s charging more for certain items on the gluten-free menu, even when they appear on the regular menu at a lower price? It’s a tricky case and it will be interesting to see how it goes.