News in Brief June 9 – Best Buy, DirecTV and More

Best Buy Deceptive Pricing Case Dismissed

A proposed class action accusing Best Buy of deceptively advertising sale items was dismissed from Minnesota federal court on Tuesday. The lawsuit claimed that Best Buy duped named plaintiff Randy Nunez into buying a microwave by advertising it next to a “regular price” and therefore indicating it was on sale when it really wasn’t. District Judge Donovan W. Frank determined that the allegations against Best Buy weren’t backed up by actual facts.

Uber Faces (Another) Unwanted Text Lawsuit

Tired of seeing Uber in the headlines? Us too. Anyway, Uber has been hit with another proposed class action after allegedly sending out unwanted texts to consumers. According to the complaint, Uber violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act when it sent automated messages to potential passengers and drivers without their consent. This time, the suit was filed in Florida federal court.

DirecTV Hit with Robocalling Lawsuit

DirecTV has been accused of using automated telephone dialers (robocalling sounds so much cooler, doesn’t it?) to advertise its services and ask old customers to come back. Aside from being a bit desperate – you’re better than this DirecTV, it’s time to move on – the lawsuit claims that the calls violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Fourth Circuit Says Dancers Are Employees, Not Contractors

A Fourth Circuit decision in a lawsuit against two nightclub owners established that a group of exotic dancers should be considered employees and not independent contractors. The court found that the clubs had enough control over the dancers that an “employee” classification was justifiable. The dancers were awarded $265,000 to help compensate for unpaid wages.

Kolbe Millwork Defective Window Suit Meets Its End

District Judge Barbara B. Crabb dismissed a lawsuit against Kolbe & Kolbe Millwork on Tuesday, putting to rest claims that the company sold defective windows. Crabb previously granted Kolbe’s motion to exclude the plaintiff’s “expert opinions” – saying they were unreliable and unhelpful – and refused to reconsider the ruling when requested by the plaintiffs.