News in Brief October 18 – Comcast, Hyland's, Melitta and More

Class Action Accuses Comcast of Charging “Bogus” Fees

A putative class action against Comcast alleges the cable company is charging customers “bogus” fees. The 79-page complaint outlines consumers’ claims that, contrary to its promise of charging customers a fixed monthly price, Comcast actually charges a much higher rate for cable services as a result of concealed and deceptive “Broadcast TV” and “Regional Sports” fees. Filed by customers who reportedly opted out of arbitration deals with the company, the lawsuit also claims Comcast raised the hidden fees multiple times, including for customers who have contractually locked-in rates. “Rather than implementing a top-line price increase for its advertised television service or bundled plans,” the suit says, “Comcast instead kept the advertised price the same and hid the price increase in a new invented and inadequately disclosed ‘Broadcast TV Fee.’”

Homeopathic Med Co. Hyland’s Quells False Advertising Suit

A 2012 false advertising class action will be put to rest after Hyland’s agreed to refund customers who purchased certain children’s medicines alleged to be ineffective at treating cold and flu symptoms. According to reports, full refunds will be doled out to class members who bought one or more of 11 products allegedly falsely marketed by the homeopathic medicine maker as “safe and effective” and “fast acting.” Refunds will be capped at two products absent proof of purchase, and three products for customers who have their receipts.

Melitta Beats False Labeling Class Action on Technicality

Coffee company Melitta USA has beaten a class action lawsuit accusing it of illegally mislabeling its coffee as naturally flavored because the plaintiff in the suit failed to include a picture of the label in question in her complaint. The New Jersey judge overseeing the suit ruled that the plaintiff appeared to be trying to “skirt around the pleading requirements” under state consumer protection laws by failing to include even one clear image of the allegedly deceptive label. The plaintiff’s suit claimed that consumers were roped into paying premium prices for naturally flavored coffee products that actually contained artificially made flavoring. Of the pictures the plaintiff did include in her complaint, the judge said they were “of such poor quality that they do not reveal the precise representations made on the front of the products.”

$950k McDonald’s Credit Check Settlement to be Approved

A $950,000 settlement will end a lawsuit filed in California claiming a McDonald’s operator violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by conducting background checks on thousands of job hopefuls without making certain mandatory disclosures. Proposed by the named plaintiffs, the deal covers more than 2,500 job applicants who applied to nearly 20 of the defendants McDonald’s franchises. In addition to alleging that background checks were conducted on unaware job applicants, one of the plaintiffs claimed he was hired and then fired after his background check mistakenly showed that he was convicted of a robbery.