Tampa Bay Injury Law Blog » Products Liability

St. Petersburg Product Liability Lawyer | Class Action Lawsuit against Cosmetic Companies

admin — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 19:32:33 +0000

The St. Petersburg Times newspaper carried a piece in their Perspective Section on Feb. 1, 2009 about a class action lawsuit against L’Oreal, Estee Lauder and other cosmetic companies for allegedly conspiring with department stores to fix prices.

The “aggrieved class” included customers who purchased certain cosmetics between May 29, 1994 and July 16, 2003. The settlement required the companies to give $175 million of free cosmetics “for as long as supplies last” beginning Jan. 20th.

The article’s writer went to a department store only to find the free supplies had lasted only days! Her point, however, was the lawyers who filed the suit were paid $24 million while the settlement benefited an insignificantly small number of the aggrieved class, who had allegedly been wronged.

I fully understand the value of class action lawsuits which have clearly served a larger good. For example, companies causing soil and water pollution come to mind, when no individual plaintiff could afford to take on the company. In such cases, they were exactly as designed.

The cases, however, which dominate the news, are ones like this cosmetic case or one involving toothbrush manufacturers- where the aggrieved class gets a new toothbrush while the lawyers receive millions of dollars. Everyone has their pet example since most of us receive notice regularly that we are a member of some aggrieved class, which some lawyer is suing for our alleged benefit.

This is another example of the doctrine of “unintended consequences.” The drafters of the class action laws, I’m sure, never intended them to be used to enrich lawyers, while the affected parties received a few cents. Unfortunately, it plays into the hands of the tort reformers who argue our system is broken.

I am opposed to broad tort reform; we have certainly had enough of that in Florida. However, unless these types of class action suits are limited, we may lose large ground in the tort wars as these cases are trumpeted as evidence to bolster the reformers agenda.

Coca-Cola Gets FDA Warning

admin — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:05:30 +0000

In an article released by the Associated Press last Tuesday, The Food and Drug Administration has released a warning to the beverage company Coca-Cola for improper use of the word “Plus” on its beverage. According to the article, the word “Plus” which is seen on the companies Diet Coke Plus soft drink, is not a legitimate plus beverage, where it has to have 10 percent more nutrients than comparable products. The FDA demands that the company relabel its beverage.

FDA Demands Relabeling on Most Facial Products

admin — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 16:32:23 +0000

In an article posted by the Associated Press, the Food and Drug Administration is informing most consumers about the long term health risks associated with many facial skin products that most women have been using more and more over the past 5 years. Dr. Michael Bigby, a Harvard Medical School dermatologist, states in the article that the gel- like fillers have inadequate labels not warning people of the side effects which include blotchy skin and bumps on the face. The article also states that many people are using these fillers for other things then their intended purpose which is a substitute for a facelift and injecting these substances in areas they aren’t supposed to be. Many plastic surgeons are going by the products and Dr. Scott Spear, a Washington plastic surgeon, has stated that these materials within the fillers are not harmful and have a “very healthy risk profile”. The FDA is continuing its study into these products and many clinical studies are being done.

Insurance Institute Rates Crossover Safety

James Dodson — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 19:50:32 +0000

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) tests and monitors vehicles for safety performance. In a press release issued August 20, 2008, the IIHS, listed its top crossover performers in regards to crashworthiness.

Earning the top safety awards were the 2009 Ford Escape, 2008 Mitsubishi Outlander, 2008 Nissan Rogue, and the 2009 Volkswagen Tiguan. The vehicles were evaluated for crashworthiness as well as ability to limit or protect injuries such as whiplash. The frontal crashworthiness evaluations are based on results of 40 mph frontal offset crash tests. IIHS has been performing these specific types of tests since 1995. For more details visit IIHS’s homepage.

The Law Office of James W. Dodson, P.A. evaluates product liability claims and has experience pursuing the best course of action for its clients affected by defective products.

Walmart Keychains Recalled

James Dodson — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:37:00 +0000

Walmart Stores has voluntarily recalled 39,000 hip-hop keychains made in China. According to a report issued by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the keychains, made in China, have unacceptable levels of lead in the product. Although no injuries have yet been attributed to the keychains, the CPSC warns parents to keep the keychains away from children. Walmart has taken, in my opinion, the responsible stand in allowing consumers to return the product to their store, and doing this recall voluntarily. Walmart maintains an internet listing of all foods and products subject to recall on their website.

About

The Law Office of James W. Dodson, P.A. has nearly 30 years combined experience in handling product liability lawsuits in the Tampa Bay area. Our practice has been built almost entirely on referrals of injury clients by other lawyers, professionals, and by his clients who trust us. For more information, please contact them for a free consultation.