Apple E Book Settlement Finalized

 

Final approval of a $450 settlement has been granted ending an antitrust class action lawsuit against Apple Inc. The lawsuit alleged that Apple conspired publishers to raise e-book prices. While all the publishers settled their claims, only Apple went to trial.

The lawsuit was brought by the US Department of Justice and 33 states and claimed that in 2010 Apple signed distribution deals with five top publishers, namely Simon & Schuster Inc., Penguin Group USA, Macmillan Publishers USA, Hachette Book Group Inc. and HarperCollins Publishers LLC, that raised the prices for digital books from $9.99 to as much as $14.99. This resulted in consumers paying hundreds of millions of dollars. In July 2013, Judge Denise Cote ruled that Apple had “played a central role in facilitating and executing” the conspiracy. The company has since appealed that decision to the Second Circuit.

Under the terms of the settlement, consumers will receive $400 million. According to court documents, a claims administrator and e-book retailers have sent emails or postcards to almost 23 million addresses of people eligible to receive compensation.

The settlement contains a provision allowing Apple to pay $50 million to consumers and $10 million each to the states and class counsel if Judge Cote’s 2013 decision finding Apple liable is vacated and remanded on appeal or reversed and remanded with instructions for reconsideration or a new trial.

Effoxor Recalled For a 2nd Time This Year

 

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. has recalled 68,000 bottles of the antidepressant Effexor (venlafaxine), in the second recall of the drug this year, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said.

In both instances, the recalled drug was manufactured at the Indian generic drug maker’s plant in Halol in the state of Gujarat. The drugs were recalled after they failed to dissolve properly in quality tests. The earlier recall, in June, was for 252,000 bottles of Effexor.

Sun Pharma is attempting a $3.2 billion purchase of Ranbaxy Laboratories, an Indian drug manufacturer that has been under scrutiny for manufacturing problems. Ranbaxy has been under export restrictions on its facilities in India, leaving it with only one plant able to manufacture drugs that can be shipped to the U.S. market. The plant in Halol has come under scrutiny from the FDA after a series of recalls of drugs manufactured there, including the diabetes drugs metformin. The FDA inspected Sun Pharma’s plant in September and the agency criticized the company for having “no formalized corrective action plan” to prevent future recalls. If the FDA is not satisfied with Sun Pharma’s plans to resolve the problems found at the plant, it can issue a warning letter, and impose an export ban on the factory.

U.S. regulators are increasing scrutiny of generic drugs made in India, after a series of recalls of prescription and over-the-counter medicines made by Indian drug companies. The FDA is concerned that the drugs fail to meet U.S. standards. Dr. Margaret Hamburg, the FDA commissioner, made a nine-day visit to India in February to meet with pharmaceutical makers to discuss quality and safety issues. Indian companies supply about one quarter of the medicines used in the U.S. In 2013, the FDA banned imports from four plants belonging to Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. and Wockhardt Ltd.

Chaotic Labz Bodybuilding Medications Dangerous and Recalled!

A popular bodybuilding supplement, which is available over-the-counter across the country, was recently recalled due to issues with its chemical makeup. According to a recent report, the Mayhem bodybuilding supplement may contain prescription level drugs which are not included on the product label. The use of these drugs could cause harm to consumers.

Chaotic Labz is the manufacturer of Mayhem dietary supplements. Products by this manufacturer can be found both in-store nationwide and online at various retailers. The product that has been recalled is packaged in a clear container with yellow capsules and have an expiration date of June 2016.

According to the FDA, these supplements may contain dexamethasone and cyproheptadine. Dexamethasone is a corticosteroid which can reduce the body's ability to fight off infections, increase blood sugar levels and can suppress adrenal gland function, among many other known side effects. Cyproheptadine is an antihistamine which can cause drowsiness. These products, if unknowingly digested by consumers, could cause serious side effects if combined with other medications.

At this time, no reports of any adverse medical events have been recorded in relation to using this supplement. Connecticut residents who feel they or a loved one have suffered any injury or harm as a result of using this particular drug may be entitled to legal recourse. Product liability claims can be filed against Chaotic Labz and others in the chain of commerce deemed responsible for this product.

Are Generic Medications Always Cheaper--Find Out The New Answer!

 as “prices for some generic medicines have skyrocketed in the last 18 months,” governments are investigating. “A federal grand jury in Philadelphia and the Connecticut Attorney General are looking into possible antitrust violations by generic drugmakers,” and the Senate Subcommittee on Primary Care and Aging is holding a hearing on Thursday “in hopes of getting some answers.” Adam J. Fein, who “follows the pharmaceutical supply chain as president of Pembroke Consulting,” wrote in an analysis released in August “that one out of 11 generic drugs more than doubled in cost in the prior 12 months, with some increases exceeding 1,000 percent.”

Consumers are encountering substantial increases for some drugs. One notable example is a heart drug known as digoxin, which used to sell for pennies a pill, but a month’s supply can now fetch up to $1,200—although the average cost is closer to $50, according to GoodRx.com, a website that tracks prices.

Some insurers are responding by changing reimbursement coverage so that consumers must pay a larger share of the cost, says Adam Fein of Pembroke Consulting, who follows pharmacy distribution. Meanwhile, he calculates that in this year’s third quarter, pharmacies paid more for 37% of all generics than they did in the previous quarter, and 3% of 2,535 generics more than doubled in cost.

This last point underscores that not every generic has skyrocketed in price and the Generic Pharmaceutical Industry Association argues that assuming there are across-the-board price increases is a mischaracterization. What’s more, consumers whose insurance coverage hasn't changed do not feel the higher prices paid by pharmacies.

The FDA has a policy to expedite reviews to combat shortage, but there is a backlog of applications for generic approvals. As of early last month, agency data shows there were 3,552 applications waiting to be processed, compared with 1,359 in October 2012, when legislation passed to create fees for speeding reviews.

So can the logjam be broken? Mr. Fein believes selective generic inflation will continue for another 12 to 18 months, but new supplies should emerge and reduce prices. And while some insurers may want consumers to pay more, insurers are also “a little nervous, because they’ve spent so many years telling consumers to switch to generics and don’t want to go back on that story.”

Avis Takes Away Your Right To Due Process

Avis Budget Rental Car Group LLC is facing an unfair business practices class action lawsuit alleging the car rental agency charged drivers for traffic tickets they incurred while renting Avis vehicles, without providing the consumer an opportunity to protest them.

Filed in federal court in New Jersey, the lawsuit claims that Avis paid traffic tickets that it received in the mail without giving any notice of the charges to the people who rented the vehicles that were ticketed. By so doing, Avis denied the renters, its customers, of their right to due process. 

 ATS Processing Services LLC, a ticket-paying service Avis uses that allegedly charges drivers steep handling fees for the payment of these possibly warrantless tickets is also a named defendant in the lawsuit.

According to the complaint, “Avis Budget chooses to pay such fines on behalf of class members ... very often, if not always, without notice to the class member, and without making any effort to contest the alleged fine on behalf of the class member. Although Avis Budget has no knowledge as to whether the class member actually committed the purported infraction.

The lawsuit goes on to allege that while the Avis rental agreement signed by plaintiffs clearly states that renters will be responsible for any fines incurred, as well as processing fees, it does not include a waiver of renters’ rights to contest an infraction, and does not specify the cost of processing fees.

According to the lawsuit, lead plaintiff Dawn Valli was automatically charged $180 for an alleged speeding violation after she rented a car from Avis Budget, $150 of which covered the fine, and the remaining $30 of which represents an “unreasonable and excessive” handling fee.

The lawsuit targets complaints that are recorded by automated devices, such as speeding and failure to pay toll tickets. In these cases, the driver is not immediately aware that he or she has been ticketed and is powerless to act until being notified. However, Avis applies a blanket policy to these types of tickets, of immediate payment, which is equal to an admission of guilt the lawsuit alleges.

Avis sent Valli a demand for payment a full 45 days before the deadline to contest her ticket, at which point Avis had already paid on her behalf, according to the complaint.

The class is suing under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, under which it is seeking treble damages. The class also asserts claims for unjust enrichment against both defendants and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against Avis.

Have You Taken Bystolic? High Blood Pressure Medication Causing Problems For Many!

 

 

In a previous post, we discussed several medications that were recalled on a national level due to dissolution issues. Drugs that are improperly designed, are likely to be ineffective and can have temporary to severe adverse health consequences to consumers. Forest Laboratories, the manufacturer of Bystolic -- one of the many drugs included in our previous post -- recently issued another recall for the same drug. This is the second recall of this medication in the last three months and, as the company ships nationwide, consumers in Connecticut may be affected.

Forest Laboratories which is now a unit of Actavis, issued an expanded recall of Bystolic. This is, again, due to dissolution issues with the products in question. The first recall issued a few months ago affected approximately 90,000 sample bottles, and this recall is much the same. More than 94,000 cartons of 20-mg tablet sample bottles are included in this recent recall.

Bystolic is a fairly popular blood pressure medication. Last year alone, consumers spent over $455 million dollars buying this product. This amount is an increase of almost 24 percent compared to the amount sold in 2012.

Patients who require medication to control blood pressure may experience serious health consequences should their medication fail. Pharmaceutical liability claims seek to hold drug manufacturers accountable for the safety and effectiveness of their products and grant victims of improperly designed medications compensation for any damages sustained.

LeanSpa Admits to False Marketing to Consumers

 

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the State of Connecticut have reached a settlement with LeanSpa for allegedly engaging in consumer fraud by using fake news websites to promote acai berry and "colon cleanse" weight-loss products, making deceptive weight-loss claims, and telling consumers they could receive free trial products by paying a nominal fee for shipping and handling.

In addition to allegations of creating fake new websites, the deceptive marketing class action also claimed that the marketers of the weight loss supplement LeanSpa falsely informed consumers that they could receive a free trial of the weight loss products if they paid a small shipping and handling fee.

However, the lawsuit contends that consumers in fact paid nearly $80 for the “free” trial and were signed up for monthly subscriptions that were difficult to cancel. Consumers reportedly paid more than $25 million to the defendants.

The FTC and the state of Connecticut shut down the alleged LeanSpa scam operation and charged the defendants with violating portions of the FTC Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, in 2011. Then, in January, 2014 an agreement was reached between the parties in which the marketers of LeanSpa supplements have agreed to pay up to $7 million in consumer refunds.

Eligible consumers include people who bought LeanSpa weight loss or other LeanSpa health supplements such as LeanSpa; LeanSpa with Acai; LeanSpa with HCA; LeanSpa Cleanse; NutraSlim; NutraSlim with HCA; QuickDetox; and SlimFuel.