Class Action Roundup - April 10

What’s been going on this week in class action news? Glad you asked…

Don’t Like This? How About Now? Gawker Intern Suit’s Social Media Plan Continues

Last month, we blogged about former Gawker interns who filed a class action lawsuit against the company for (allegedly) failing to properly pay them. As part of a proposed settlement plan, plaintiffs asked for permission to use social media – Facebook, Twitter, etc. – to find and notify potential class members. It’s a relatively new way of seeking out individuals who might be covered by a settlement, and, ultimately, the judge wasn’t convinced that the scope of the plan was warranted. Well, now plaintiffs are trying again, submitting a new notification plan requesting permission to contact at least 27 former interns using social media. Request include permission to “follow” known class members on Twitter (so they can be contacted through direct messaging), to “friend” the individuals on Facebook and to use LinkedIn’s “InMail” to send details of the lawsuit. The new plan is “narrowly tailored”, say the plaintiffs, presumably hoping to avoid another rejection on the grounds their aims are too broad.

Five Stars, Would Sue Again: First “Fake Review” Suit Filed by Amazon

GeekWire reported this week on the first known lawsuit filed by Amazon over fake product reviews. It’s long been known (or, at least, suspected) that not all reviews are genuine, but now, the operators of sites that offer fake 4- and 5-star reviews of products are facing the might of the retail giant’s legal clout. The suit was filed in California and named Jay Gentile, the owner of buyamazonreviews.com, as the defendant. Amazon accuses the fake reviews of undermining customer trust and even shipping empty boxes in order to “trick” Amazon into thinking the reviews were of verified purchases. The suit alleges trademark violations and deceptive acts, and is seeking compensation and a full account of how much Gentile made from his website.

The Council for Education and Research on Toxics Says Starbucks Is Using "Junk Science”

Should Starbucks served in California be stamped with a Proposition 65 warning label because it contains a carcinogen? Yes, according to the nonprofit currently fighting the company in court. The Council for Education and Research on Toxics believes that Starbucks, along with dozens of other companies, is required to label its products as potentially carcinogenic because they contain higher levels of acrylamide. The nonprofit also brought charges under the states’ Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act. In response, Starbucks - along with Green Mountain Coffee Co., Kraft Foods Group Inc., and J. M. Smucker’s Co. – offered expert testimony and argued that coffee is a “complex chemical mixture” that does not pose a risk to drinkers, even when you take into account its levels of acrylamide. The company also called CERT’s request to present evidence about the carcinogenic properties of acrylamide as an isolated ingredient “absurd,” pointing out that:

“The exposure that is the subject of the complaint in these actions is coffee, specifically and explicitly.”

This week, CERT described the submitted evidence as “junk science”, arguing:

“They provided no evidence of a risk analysis. That is just a naked conclusion. It’s junk science. It’s not evidence.”

It’s a tough case, and it’s made tougher by the fact Judge Elihu M. Berle ruled in July 2013 that CERT’s motion for summary adjudication should be denied and that the case should be fought using expert evidence. Both sides have agreed to be bound by the bench trial verdict – so now, the fight is on.

Facebook’s Huge European Class Action Finally Goes to Court – Kind Of

Back in August we first reported a new lawsuit against Facebook accusing the company of violating European users’ privacy alleging that Facebook took part in the NSA’s “PRISM” surveillance program. The suit, Europe vs. Facebook, has garnered a lot of publicity – and public support – now has 25,000 plaintiffs. This week, the suit finally went to court in Vienna - although, as venturebeat.com explains, Facebook didn’t actually show up. The company is still fighting the lawsuit and arguing that the case in inadmissible, meaning it contests the very basis of the case and the legitimacy of it being filed in the Austrian court. It’s a claim that plaintiffs knew was coming and have already argued against, with Max Schrems, lead plaintiff and general mastermind behind the suit, pointing out:

“Most arguments by Facebook are really a comedy program for any informed lawyer. Partly they are even trying to reach their conclusions through rather obscure allegations. Right now I view these arguments mainly as an act of desperation. If Facebook would have a better case, they would not have to engage in these shaky arguments.”

The lawsuit’s website announced yesterday that the preparation hearing had gone “very well” and that a decision on the Vienna court’s jurisdiction will be delivered in writing.

Hummus, Ice Cream Recalled Over Listeria Fears

Sabra Dipping Co. LLC announced on Wednesday that more than 30,000 cases of hummus are being recalled over fears they’ve been infected with listeria – a potentially fatal bacteria. The news followed a routine sample that tested positive in Michigan. A Texas ice cream maker has now announced its own expanded recall after listeria was also found in a pint of banana pudding ice cream made by Blue Bell Creameries. The ice cream was made in a plain in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma.

Sabra’s voluntary recall covers its Classic Hummus 10 oz., Classic Hummus 30 oz., Class Hummus without Garnish 32 oz., Class Hummus 17 oz. Six Pack, and Hummus Dual Pack Classic Garlic 23.5 oz. Blue Bell products that are now subject to recall include milkshakes, “Scoops”, ice cream cups, and ice cream. Five people in Kansas were hospitalized in March after developing listeriosis, reportedly caused by contaminated Blue Bell milkshakes.

Affected items should be thrown away or returned for a full refund, the companies said.