Can A Pharmaceutical Company Be Held Liable Even If It Has Warnings On The Label?

Pharmaceutical companies often find themselves caught up in litigation because of the drugs or medicines that they manufacture and sell. Generally, the manufacturer of a drug is obligated to test the product before it is put on market using the test criteria and guidelines issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) agency. Even though this criteria is seen as industry standard, this doesnt absolve a drug manufacturer who has had their product approved by the FDA from liability to injured people.

As it is the case with most drugs, except those that you can buy over-the-counter with no prescription, there is always an intermediary between the drug manufacturer and the end user. This is usually the doctor who prescribes the medicine, the nurse that advises on the proper dosage and use or the pharmacist who fills a specific prescription. The lines of liability arent as clear cut as they could be. That is why often it makes sense to talk to an experienced personal injury attorney who has dealt with this type of case before.

The Case of Unavoidably Unsafe Products

Some drugs will always have harmful side effects, no matter how carefully they are made. If pharmaceutical companies were treated the same way as electrical appliance companies are, there would be no drugs to speak of. So drugs that are considered unavoidably unsafe are still allowed on the market because of the potential benefits that they bring to the user. If the drug has been manufactured to be as safe as possible and the label includes adequate warning text, users cannot usually sue the drug manufacturer for defective manufacturing. However there are exceptions as we have seen with the recent low testosterone lawsuit cases.

When Is A Product Considered Unavoidably Unsafe?

A product is considered unavoidably unsafe when it cannot be made safe for its intended use. The legal system generally looks at 4 criteria before deciding whether a product is unavoidably unsafe or not: preparation, marketing, risk vs benefit ratio and whether the product has any alternatives.


If a mistake happens in the manufacturing process of the drug and the drug causes serious side effects, the product is not unavoidably unsafe. When it comes to the pharmaceutical industry, the product must work as intended. If its not prepared correctly or if the ingredients contain impurities, it is not unavoidably unsafe.


If the drug is marketed inadequately and the drugs label does not contain appropriate warnings, it cannot be considered unavoidably unsafe. That is why all drugs have clear and direct instructions as to who it is intended for. Similar to this, if the drugs instructions and label does not caution against the adverse side effects it can cause, it is not considered unavoidably unsafe.

Utility vs Risk

For a drug to be approved and considered unavoidably unsafe its utility or benefits have to outweigh the risk. As an example, if a drug relives your headache but causes cancer then it is obviously not unavoidably unsafe. Drugs ranging from birth control to dermatological products (such as Accutane) have been found to be sufficiently helpful to warrant the risk associated with their usage.

Available Alternatives

If an alternative product exists that would deliver the same result at a lower or no risk rate, then the drug cannot be considered unavoidably unsafe. Courts will look at what alternatives there are and take into consideration their cost, efficiency and safety to determine if there are any available alternatives.

Pharmaceutical Companys Duty to Warn

Drug manufacturers have the duty and obligation to warn of any side effects that a drug creates. However they are not required to do when it comes to unknown dangers. A drug manufacturer will often instruct a pharmacist or a clinician about these dangers.

The drug manufacturer, by virtue of creating the drug, is seen as an expert and has a legal obligation to update medical professionals on any updates regarding the drugs and medicine that they manufacture, including any potential adverse effects. A manufacturer has to warn about any side effects and drug reactions even if they are statistically rare.

Drug Injury and Time Lapse

Sometimes, the plaintiff wont be able to identify the specific drug that caused the injury or the period when the drug was taken because of significant passage of time that has occurred (for example in cases where the drugs were taken during pregnancy). In pregnancies, the damage may not even be evident until the child is born. Another classic example of the time lapse problem are asbestos-exposure cases. Oftentimes the attorneys will try to come up with a number of theories that shift the burden to potential defendants or to distribute damages among different manufacturers who can be held liable.

Vaccine Injury and Children

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act helps those who have been injured by childhood immunizations to obtain compensation without lengthy and costly litigation procedures. Attorneys who are representing such clients are required to inform them about the possibility of redress under this Act.

What To Do If Youve Been Injured As A Result of Taking Medication

Drug injury cases are often complex and proving legal fault often requires an experienced team of attorneys. There are a number of theories under which a plaintiff can make a claim but the same claim can be defeated just as well by someone who has experience with this type of case. It is therefore important to consult an experienced personal injury attorney if you or a loved one has suffered as a result of taking defective medication.

Defects in Drug Warnings

A drug can still be considered dangerous even if it has no design flaw and it is manufactured properly. U.S. law considers a product defective if it does not provide sufficient instructions or warnings, especially when the risks of harm could have been avoided if the manufacturer had provided adequate warnings or instructions with respect to the product. Put simply, if the drug manufacturer does not include all the adverse side effects that a drug can cause on its label or the accompanying instructions, the drug is considered dangerous and the manufacturer can be held liable for any injuries caused by the drug.

What Are A Drug Manufacturers Duties?

When it comes to warnings and instructions, a manufacturer has to make sure that

  • Consumers are warned of any hidden dangers that the product might pose
  • Adequate instructions and warnings are present on the products label and any related materials that accompany it so that they might avoid any danger and use the product in safe manner.

Since drugs and medicine is usually provided to patients through a learned intermediary such as a doctor, the manufacturer accomplishes the second duty by informing the medical professionals to the recommended dosage and how the drug must be taken for maximum effect while minimizing risk. The warning label and adequate instruction must be present however, regardless if the drug is prescribed or sold over-the-counter.

The law requires that warnings be clear and specific. They should be present on the product packaging, the product itself, the instructional paper or in all three places at once. The warning must be clear and visibly delimited from the rest of the package. In FDA-approved drugs such a warning is found on the products label in a black box, hence the term black box warning (or boxed warning). The warning must be written in a simple language. Many drug manufacturers have warnings in multiple languages as well.

Are There Cases When A Drug Warning Is Not Required?

Generally, drug manufacturers have to inform in the warnings about any dangers that are currently known. They are not held responsible for side-effects that are unknown. In other products outside the pharmaceutical niche warnings are required when:

  • The product poses a danger to the user;
  • The manufacturer is aware of the danger or defective nature of the product;
  • The danger is present even when the product is used in a reasonable manner;
  • The danger is not clearly presented to the user (not obvious).

Of course the definition of reasonable use and obvious to the reasonable consumer will vary from product to product. However, when it comes to drug and medication, this will be clearly stated in the instructional booklet that comes with every product.

Are Consumers Responsible As Well?

Even though manufacturers have a duty to inform users of the dangers a product poses, the consumers have to follow these warnings. If the patient takes a handful of aspirin on an empty stomach, the drug manufacturer is not liable if the patient gets an ulcer because of his actions.

When Does A Drug Manufacturer Pull A Product Off the Market?

he FDA requires that all pharmaceutical drugs sold in the U.S. be deemed safe for patients. When it is found that a drug can cause a health risk to the patient, the drugs label can either be updated to include this warning or it can be pulled from the market altogether (recalled). Doctors may ask patients to return the defective medicine and manufacturers may provide a fix for the problem. In this article we are going to look at the causes that make a drug manufacturer recall its product(s).

Pharmaceutical Industry and Regulation

The government takes an active role in ensuring drug safety. Just because the FDA has approved a drug doesnt mean that it stops monitoring it. On the contrary, the agency keeps a close watch on the drug and its effectiveness when it reaches the market. They make sure to update drug labels to include any newly discovered side effects, potential health risks and interaction with other drugs. Even if manufacturers have their own process for receiving and investigating reported problems, the FDA has its own reporting system. Its up to the physicians and other medical experts to make drug recommendations for their patients. Medical researchers will study a drug and write about its effectiveness and side effects as compared to other known, similar drugs. At this stage, most problems that appear with prescription drugs can be analyzed and corrected without the need for a drug recall.

When A Drug Gets Recalled

If researchers discover or doctors receive reports of a serious health risk posed by the drug, a recall may be initiated by the manufacturer. Recall decisions are made on a case-by-case basis for each drug. Here are a number of reasons why drugs get recalled:

  • Previously Unknown Interactions With Other Drugs Sometimes mixing one medicine with another can cause adverse side effects. Drug interaction can also happen with certain foods and vitamins as well.
  • Risk of Health Problems It is common for researchers to find in later studies a connection between a health risk and use of a certain drug. Some prescribed drugs have been found to increase the risk of stroke, cardiovascular complication, kidney failure and other serious, life-threatening conditions.
  • Manufacturing or Packaging Errors Sometimes, an error in the manufacturing process can make a medication dangerous (such as contamination with adulterants). A packaging error can unseal a drug and render it useless when it reaches the consumer.

The Process of A Drug Recall

In most cases, the manufacturer will be the one who initiates the recall if it finds that one of its drugs is deemed unsafe (voluntary recall). What leads the manufacturer to make such a decision is often widespread reports from patients and clinical studies of adverse side effects caused by the drug. Sometimes the manufacturer can find a fault in the manufacturing or packaging process on its own. Technically, all such recalls are still made at the FDAs request.

The Food and Drug Administration will work closely with a manufacturer during a recall. A public database of product recalls is available and will aid the pharmaceutical company in removing the drug from the market. A recall classification system is used to categorize the recall based on the order of its seriousness.

Difference Between Withdrawal & Recall

Sometimes, drug manufacturers may decide to withdraw a drug from the market for various reasons. A market withdrawal is not the same as a recall. Existing drugs do not have to be returned. The manufacturer has simply stopped manufacturing or distributing the drug. Withdrawal in this sense occurs because the supply is simply cut off.

Market withdrawals are often business decisions. A manufacturer may find that a drug is simply not profitable (if generics for example are available) or if product liability lawsuits have damaged the products brand and consequently is damaging the companys image.

Federal Court Overseeing Testosterone Lawsuits Ruled New Order Addressing State Court Coordination

A new order was issued on January 7th by the federal court about the state court testosterone lawsuit proceedings and the similar claims currently taking place in multiple state courts. The order stated that a number of attorneys representing the plaintiffs must now act as representatives with state proceedings held in Illinois, Missouri, Pennsylvania, California and Indiana and also for other state cases that arise in the future. The outcome could result in quicker settlements for the men injured by these drugs.

Currently, there has been an estimated 620 low testosterone therapy lawsuits that have been filed in the Northern District of Illinois in defense of men who allege to have suffered strokes, heart attacks, life-threatening cardiovascular events, deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism as a result of their “Low T” therapy. As the primary reason, the plaintiffs argue that the manufacturers of the prescribed drugs concealed their potentially adverse side effects from the public and did not warn doctors and patients about the risks. The plaintiffs also propose that sales of the medications were driven by misleading marketing claims that the pharmaceutical companies spent millions of dollars on that glorified the drugs to be effective remedies for male aging symptoms, and that those claims have now injured many once healthy men that used the drugs without true medical need and did not have hypogonadism.

Court documents reveal that the testosterone drug therapy litigation has been gaining strength since January of 2014 when the FDA published a safety announcement stating they were investigating the drugs in question. Since that time, FDA advisors have instructed the labels be updated to reflect that the medications have actually not been proved to lessen muscle loss, fatigue, low libido and other male aging symptoms. The FDA advisors has also required manufacturers to conduct cardiovascular side effect studies on their drugs.

More suits are anticipated to be filed in 2015.

Whats Next For The Women Suing Over Zofran Birth Defects?

Zofran birth defect lawsuits filed against GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) are rapidly increasing. Women who took Zofran during their pregnancy for nausea are now suffering the consequences since the drug company chose profit over safety. Now what?

Court documents filed on February 16th in the U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, claimed that GSK was fully aware of lab studies which indicated a link to intrauterine deaths and malformations in animals that were administered Zofran. This confirms that GSK knew that animal studies conducted on Zofran indicated that the drug cannot be used safely or effectively in pregnant women. The plaintiff claims after using Zofran during her pregnancy to treat nausea, her daughter was born with birth defects.

Just days before, another lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania that claims GSK marketed the drug off-label without FDA approval to treat morning sickness in pregnant women and the drug company had zero evidence to support Zofran’s safety for unborn children. The court documents reveal accusations that GSK fully was aware that Zofran readily crosses human placental barriers during pregnancy. The plaintiff claims she used Zofran during two of her pregnancies and both children were born with heart defects.

GSK admittedly confirms that Zofran was never tested on pregnant women since pregnant women are usually excluded from drug trials. The sad yet true fact remains that pregnant women are then either denied medication or worse, given untested medication (such as Zofran) that can harm the unborn child.

Both of the lawsuits claim that GSK has received hundreds of Zofran birth defects reports since 1992 associated with prenatal exposure. Ironically, that may just be a small piece of the puzzle.

A study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology reported that an estimated 110,000 pregnant women received prescription for Zofran by the end of 2013. These women were completely unaware of the risk of Zofran birth defects, even though the FDA had issued warnings about the defects.

Even though Zofran has incredible birth defect risks, the FDA has not pulled Zofran from the shelves.

Just some of the side effects of Zofran are:

  • Heart defects
  • Musculoskeletal anomalies
  • Mouth deformities
  • Jaundice

In addition to birth defects, Zofran has also caused adverse side effects to the women themselves. Many women have reported adverse effects from the drug.

This is not the first time GSK has faced a lawsuit. They, in fact, had the largest healthcare settlement in drug company payout history in 2012 being fined $3 billion. Not surprisingly, this was due to GSK’s failure to report safety information and off-label drug use.

The $10 Million Target Settlement: What It May Mean For You

During the fourth quarter of 2013 hackers breached Targets database and gained access to millions of customer files. Earlier this week a federal court ordered Target to set aside $10 million to settle claims by victims of the breach. The settlement allows for all 42 million potential victims to claim up to $10,000 in individual damages, but the settlement also places a large burden of proof on each claimant. With a burden of proof to meet and just $10 million to split between millions of potential claimants, what does the settlement really mean for you, the individual customer?

The Burden of Proof

In order to qualify for a single penny, each affected customer must show that they have suffered a financial loss due to the data breach. That may sound easy, all a person need do is show a fraudulent charge on a credit or debit card used at Target or costs incurred for monitoring their credit. The problem is that most card issuers will charge-off fraudulent charges, so card holders do not have a financial loss and Target offered free credit monitoring. Even if an individual has a loss and can show a paper trail proving they paid for the loss, they can not make a claim for their trouble, so they will only be compensated for the amount lost. The burden of proof spelled out by the court is specific. In order to be considered for compensation, you must file a claim form showing one of the following:

? Unauthorized charges on a credit or debit card that has not been reimbursed.
? They lost time due to unauthorized charges.
? Incurred costs hiring someone to correct credit their reports.
? Suffered higher interest rates on accounts due to fraud.
? Lost or had restricted access to funds.
? Paid fees on an account related to fraud from the breach.
? Forced to pay for credit monitoring or purchased credit reports.

Most experts agree that the average person affected by the breach will only receive between $50 and $100, if they file a claim. Even if a person files a claim, they may not receive a payout. According to Craig A. Newman, managing partner at law firm Richards Kibbe Orbe LLP, people have a great deal of difficulty proving direct harm from a data breach.

Despite the low potential payouts, Target is not completely dodging the bullet from the breach. The company does not receive any of the leftover funds from this settlement. Additionally, the company has already spent an estimated $191 million in legal fees. Add the $10 million for this settlement, the $6.75 million set aside to pay the legal fees for all of the plaintiffs in the case, and money spent for security updates, Target has spent more than $210 million on a single data breach.

Targets Security Improvements

Target has had to agree to a number of security upgrades and improvements as a result of the breach. The first initiative was to create, and fill, the position of chief information security officer. The role includes overseeing global information security and Targets information technology risk organization. The position has been filled by Brad Maiorino, a former GM executive.

The next initiative is create a viable program designed to identify internal and external security threats that may affect shoppers personal information. The program must include a step-by-step process for monitoring information security risks and will include employee training that focuses on safeguarding customers information. Mr. Newman says that these steps were most likely put in place shortly after the breach, but the settlement codifies the process.

Plaintiffs are encouraged to file a claim despite the potential for a low payout. Even if you have not noticed a fraudulent charge on your credit or debit card, you should check your credit reports to insure no one has opened a new account in your name. You can do that by visiting The reports are free if you have not requested a copy of them during the previous twelve months.


  1. Nutro Ultra Dog Food – Plaintiffs contend that Nutro Ultra sold dry dog kibble and dog biscuits that contained a “Guaranteed Analysis” regarding the amount of Bacillus Species contain therein. Submit your claim here.
  2. Michael Kors – Allegations have been made that Michael Kors Outlet stores placed a “Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price” (MSRP) and “Our Price” on sales tags suggesting that the product was discounted from retail stores instead of made specifically for the outlet stores. Submit your claim here.
  3. Lennox – The plaintiffs allege that Lennox manufacturers sell air conditioning and heat pump systems that contain defective evaporator coils that are susceptible to corrosion. Submit your claim here.
  4. StarKist– This settlement resolves allegations that StarKist Co. under-filled certain tuna products in direct violation of federal law. $8,000,000 in monetary compensation and $4,000,000 in vouchers. Submit your claim here.
  5. True Religion – The settlement will pay eligible plaintiffs compensation for the allegations that True Religion claimed some of its products were “Made in USA” even though they may have contained foreign-made component parts. Submit your claim here.
  6. Beck’s Beer – Plaintiffs allege that Beck’s Beer, brewed and sold by Anheuser-Busch, gave the impression that Beck’s Beer is brewed and bottled in Germany, when it is in fact made in the United States. Submit claim here.
  7. Templeton Rye Whiskey – The lawsuits allege that Templeton Rye Whiskey engaged in deceptive marketing by failing to adequately disclose that its rye whiskey product was distilled in the State of Indiana. Submit your claim here.
  8. Schiff Nutrition – The plaintiffs allege that Schiff Nutrition’s labeling of certain Glucosamine joint health products contain false, deceptive and misleading statements and do not warn consumers about the potentially harmful side effects of the supplements. Submit your claim here.
  9. Peg Perego – Allegations have been made against Peg Perego that the baby products manufacturer violated California law by advertising its various children’s riding vehicle products as “Made in the USA” or “Made in USA” even though they did not meet the standards to include such a label. Submit your claim here.
  10. Fresh Potatoes – The plaintiffs allege a price-fixing conspiracy in the potato industry that caused consumers to pay more than necessary for fresh potatoes purchased at retail stores. Submit your claim here.

Volkswagen Recalls 8.5 Million Diesel Vehicles in Europe

The Volkswagen emissions cheating scandal continues with 8.5 million diesel cars sold by VW in Europe that will be recalled this weeks. Considering that the German automaker actually sold more than 11 million diesel vehicles that are known to have featured the defeat device software that allows for fraudulent testing cycle performance, Europe is only the beginning. Were still looking at millions of more cars that will need to be recalled worldwide.

The Federal Motor Transport Authority has authorized “fixes” to begin in January 2016. Green Car Reports provides more:

Volkswagen says it will recall a total of 8.5 million TDI models in Europe that are equipped with the EA189 four-cylinder engine, including a confirmed 2.4 million just in Germany. Other European countries will clarify in turn exactly which EA189-equipped models within their jurisdictions are affected.

Volkswagen will contact European customers with affected cars directly, and is setting up websites so customers can check to see if their cars are being recalled.

The company is not discussing exactly how it will address the emissions issue, either in Europe or in North America, but says fixes can involve “software as well as hardware measures,” depending on the model. This week’s agreement to mount a massive recall across Europe does not include approximately 482,000 similar vehicles in the United States that have been identified as having the same emissions “defeat device” software.

The models being recalled include: all 2009-2015 model years of the diesel VW Golf, VW Beetle, VW Jetta, and the Audi A3 and A4 TDI models. In addition to pulling nearly all of its diesel offerings from its website and publicly announcing a more “electric friendly” future, VW is currently considering the option of simply buying back affected vehicles in the US.

In the meantime, Volkswagen continues to stress that all affected cars worldwide remain safe to drive, and that owners should continue to do so.

Top 10 New Class Action Lawsuits December 2015

  1. Pollo Tropical – The lawsuit alleges that Pollo Tropical claiming that between December 2010 and January 2011 the restaurant company sent out an estimated 6,096 coupons through unsolicited facsimile advertisements. Submit your claim here.
  2. Radio Shack- Attorneys general from several states had accused RadioShack of selling gift cards to consumers after the 2014 holiday season even though the company knew it would soon be declaring bankruptcy and that the cards would lose their value. Submit your claim here.
  3. Elations – The Elations joint supplement class action lawsuit alleged that the “clinically-proven” statements on the labels and/or packaging of Elations Healthier Joints Daily Joint Supplement Drink are false and misleading. The class action lawsuit also alleged that the product’s active products, glucosamine hydrochloride and chondroitin sulfate, cannot improve joint health or relieve joint pain. Submit your claim here.
  4. Toyota Corolla Power Steering – Class Members of the Toyota Corolla class action settlement include current and former owners of model year 2009 and 2010 Toyota Corolla vehicles (excluding XRS grade). Submit your claim here.
  5. Oregon LCD Antitrust – Oregon Attorney General Ellen F. Rosenblum filed two antitrust lawsuits against the makers of liquid crystal display (LCD) flat panels and Cathode Ray Tubes (CRT). The lawsuits accused the manufacturers of conspiring to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the prices of TFT-LCD flat panels or CRT resulting in overcharges to consumers who indirectly purchased TVs, monitors, or notebook computers containing LCD flat panels or CRTs. Submit your claim here.
  6. IMAX Chicago – The Navy Pier IMAX has agreed to pay as much as $455,000 in order to settle a class action lawsuit stemming over allegations that the theater violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA). Submit claim here.
  7. LabCorp – LabCorp has reached an agreement to pay $11 million in a class action settlement to resolve claims that the laboratory services company willfully violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) when they allegedly printed electronic debit card and credit card receipts that included credit card expiration dates. Submit your claim here.
  8. MAC – The lawsuit alleges that MAC employees asked for ZIP code information under the pretense that the information was necessary to complete their credit card transaction, but in reality the cosmetics retailer would use customers’ names and ZIP code data to identify the customer’s address using commercially available databases. The MAC class action lawsuit brought charges of unjust enrichment and violations of the Massachusetts Unfair Trade Practices Act. Submit your claim here.
  9. Kashi – This settlement resolves allegations that the food manufacturer mislabeled items in order to persuade customers into buying their products. Submit your claim here.
  10. Ford Vehicles – The lawsuit alleges that Ford should have known that the two-piece spark plugs used in these engines were prone to become stuck and sometimes break in the engine during the removal process, making the spark plugs more difficult and expensive to remove. Submit your claim here.

Top 10 Class Action Lawsuits April 2016 Edition

  1. HIKO – The lawsuit alleges that HIKO charged eight times as much for their electric supply as compared to its competitor Public Service Electric and Gas Company. Submit your claim here.
  2. Ocwen – New York Department of Financial Services Superintendent Benjamin Lawsky initiated allegations against Ocwen of backdating potentially hundreds of thousands of letters to borrowers which was likely to cause them “significant harm.” Submit your claim here.
  3. Citibank – Plaintiff Ramona Edery filed the Citibank lawsuit after making a call to the toll-free number in order to open an account. She claims to have discussed private financial information during that phone call and only later discovered that the conversation had been recorded. Edery alleges that Citibank violated California’s Invasion of Privacy Act. Submit your claim here.
  4. Lowe’s – The lawsuit alleges that at the time the plaintiffs applied for a job, Lowe’s obtained a background check about them. Lowe’s asked the Plaintiffs to sign a disclosure and authorization form that contained a liability waiver. The Plaintiffs alleged that this standard form violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(2) because it contained additional language other than a disclosure under this law. Lowe’s denied that it violated the law and that including the liability waiver violated the law. Submit your claim here.
  5. Family Dollar – This settlement resolves accusations that Family Dollar violated TCPA by sending texts without specific prior consent. Submit your claim here.
  6. Good Karma – Good Karma flax milk settlement will resolve allegations raised by plaintiff Larry Tran that he and other consumers purchased the products based, at least in part, on the statements printed on the products’ packaging stating that the products are natural. The Defendants deny all allegations of wrongdoing and liability and contend that the “natural” statements used in conjunction with the statement “*added vitamins & minerals” do not represent that the added vitamins and minerals are “natural.” Defendants also maintain that a reasonable consumer would not be misled into believing that the products were all natural. Submit claim here.
  7. Snyder’s Snacks – The lawsuit specifically claimed that the “natural” statements on labels of Snyder’s of Hanover® Pretzels, Snyder’s of Hanover® Chips, Cape Cod® Potato Chips, Eatsmart Naturals® Snacks, Padrino’s® Chips, and Snack Factory Pretzel Crisps® products were false. Submit your claim here.
  8. Rexall Glucosamine – The lawsuit specifically claims that the manufacturer made false statements on the labels of some of their joint health supplements. Submit your claim here.
  9. Nationstar – Nationstar Mortgage agreed to settle a class action lawsuit that accused the company of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by robocalling consumers regarding a home loan. Submit your claim here.
  10. Mohonk – The Mohonk Mountain House class action lawsuit was filed by plaintiffs Louis Bellotti and Anna Marie Bellotti in 2014. They allege that a norovirus outbreak at the Mohonk Mountain House caused some visitors to experience gastrointestinal illness due to a norovirus outbreak. According to the class action settlement, gastrointestinal illness may involve nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, lethargy, weakness, muscle aches, headaches and/or fever. Submit your claim here.