Consumer Protection

Church & Dwight Vitafusion B Folic Acid Underreporting

vitamin b complex gummy

Lieff Cabraser is investigating consumer complaints that Church & Dwight Co. understates the amount of folic acid in its Vitafusion B Complex Adult Vitamin Gummies dietary supplements, making those Vitafusion B Gummies potentially health-threatening. This deceptive business practice of understating the folic acid is viewed as a fraud that breaches various warranties surrounding the Vitafusion product and provides unjust enrichment to Church & Dwight at consumers’ expense.

New Jersey corporation Church & Dwight produces and sells many dietary supplements, including Vitafusion B. Testing conducted on behalf of consumers indicates that Vitafusion B contains more than three times the amount of folic acid per serving indicated on the product label, an overabundance is potentially harmful. The Office of Dietary Supplements at the National Institute of Health notes that such elevated consumption of folic acid can increase the risk of heart attack, increase the risk of certain precancerous tumors becoming malignant, and exacerbate anemia.

Contact A National Consumer Protection Lawyer at Lieff Cabraser

If you or a family member have been taking Church & Dwight Vitafusion B Gummies and are concerned about the alleged fraud or potentially dangerous health effects, we invite you to contact a consumer protection lawyer at Lieff Cabraser about your case. There is no charge or obligation, and the information you provide will help us hold Church & Dwight accountable for any fraud or injuries to consumers.


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

Please describe your experience with Vitafusion B Gummies:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes

American Airlines Improper/Illegal Ticket Change Fees

airplane

Lieff Cabraser is investigating passenger complaints that American Airlines is charging travelers a $200 ticket change fee when they try to change their plane tickets less than 24 hours after the original purchase, in apparent violation of applicable rules and laws.

Contact a Consumer Protection Lawyer at Lieff Cabraser

If you are an American Airlines passenger and have been charged this kind of $200 change fee within the first 24 hours after purchasing tickets, we urge you to contact a consumer protection lawyer at Lieff Cabraser about your potential case by using the form below or calling us today at 1 800 541-7358. The information you provide will help us hold American Airlines accountable for improper ticket fee charges and any other violations of the rules governing plane ticket purchases in the U.S.


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone Day

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

Please describe your experience with American Airlines ticket adjustment charges:

Comments or additional information:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes

New York Health Insurance Late Payments

Health Insurance Fraud Investigation

Lieff Cabraser is investigating complaints by many New Yorkers that health insurance companies are failing to timely pay health insurance claims.

Patients in New York often find themselves visiting medical doctors and other medical practice groups that are not “in network” with their health insurance company, and therefore have to submit an “out of network” claim for benefits and reimbursement. Though insurance companies usually only pay a percentage of the total out-of-network medical visit compared to in-network providers, many New Yorkers prefer the freedom to see their provider of choice, including providers that may not be “in network” with any insurance company.

Many New Yorkers are unaware that all of the below-listed insurance companies that do business in New York are required to promptly reimburse you following any out-of-network insurance claim submission for reimbursement. Failure of the insurance company to repay you within 30 days (or 45 days, if the claim was submitted by regular mail) is a violation of New York law and may entitle you to compensation that includes interest on the amount of money the insurance company failed to timely pay to you.

We are investigating these allegations with respect to numerous insurance companies doing business in New York, including:

  • Aetna
  • Capital District Physicians
  • CIGNA Health and Life Insurance Company
  • CIGNA Life Insurance Company of New York
  • Combined Life Insurance Company of New York
  • Community Blue (aka HealthNow)
  • Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield
  • Empire HealthChoice Assurance, Inc
  • Excellus
  • Health Republic Insurance of New York, Corp.
  • HealthNow New York Inc.
  • HIP Health Maintenance Organization
  • Independent Health Association, Inc.
  • Oscar Insurance Corporation
  • Oxford Health Plans (NY), Inc.
  • UnitedHealthcare of New York, Inc.

Contact a Consumer Protection Lawyer at Lieff Cabraser

If you, or you on behalf of a loved one, have submitted a health insurance claim to be reimbursed after seeing an out-of-network provider, and the claim was not paid for 45 or more days after your submission, please contact us so that we can evaluate your claim to see if you would be entitled to compensation.

We are also interested in speaking with out-of-network medical providers who provide ‘balance billing’ options to their patients and similarly experience a delay in the payment of submitted insurance claims.


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone Day

Telephone Eve

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

Please list your insurer:

Comments or questions:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes

QuoteWizard Robocall and Text Complaints

Pile of different modern smartphones.

Lieff Cabraser represents a proposed nationwide class of consumers in litigation alleging that QuoteWizard is violating consumer privacy laws via unconsented text messages and automated “robocalls” to consumers across the U.S. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) prohibits abusive telephone practices by lenders and marketers, and places strict limits on the use of autodialers to call or send texts or robocalls to cell phones. Lieff Cabraser has spearheaded a series of groundbreaking class actions under the TCPA that have led to over $280 million in settlements for consumers.

If you have been harassed by such calls or messages from QuoteWizard, contact Lieff Cabraser consumer protection lawyer John Spragens today. You can use the form below or call us toll-free at 1 800 541-7358. There is no charge or obligation for our review of your complaint.


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

Was the call/message sent to a cell phone, landline, or text message?

If you received a call, did the call use a prerecorded message?

Total number of calls/texts received:

Comments & questions:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes

Ford Super Duty Diesel Emissions Complaints

Diesel Pollution Fraud

Lieff Cabraser is investigating consumer complaints that Ford Motor Company illegally installed “defeat devices” in its model year 2011-2017 F-250 and F-350 diesel Super Duty trucks to evade emissions standards.

Ford advertised the trucks as their “cleanest ever” and claimed they achieved “best in class” fuel economy. In reality, Ford’s Super Duty diesel trucks pollute well above legal limits and can achieve the touted fuel efficiencies only by substantially reducing emissions controls in actual road use. On-road and laboratory testing indicates that under normal conditions, the trucks emit Nitrous Oxide (NOx) up to five times the legal limit; with increased payload (towing), the trucks emit up to 15 times the legal limit; and at low temperatures, the trucks emit up to 30 times the legal limit.

If these allegations are correct, Ford’s Super Duty trucks are not only producing excess emissions with harmful effects on public health, but Ford is also defrauding consumers by charging them thousands of dollars extra for “clean” vehicles that are not in fact clean, and that cannot achieve the advertised fuel efficiency without producing dangerous emissions far in excess of promised amounts and legally permitted limits.

Contact a Consumer Protection Lawyer at Lieff Cabraser

If you purchased or leased a Ford Super Duty diesel truck, we encourage you to contact a consumer protection lawyer at Lieff Cabraser. We welcome the opportunity to learn of your experiences with the vehicle and answer your questions. We will review your claim for free, confidentially, and with no obligation on your part. The information you provide will help us hold Ford accountable for its alleged violations of environmental protection laws and any deceptions perpetrated upon its customers.


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone Day

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

What model year is your Ford Super Duty diesel truck?

In what state did you purchase or lease the vehicle?

Was the vehicle purchased new, used, or leased?

When did you acquire the vehicle?

Do you still possess the vehicle?

In what state is your vehicle registered?

Comments & questions:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes


 

California Unpaid Mortgage Interest Litigation

California Unpaid Mortgage Interest Lawsuit

Lieff Cabraser represents California homeowners in class action litigation against Bank of America alleging BofA fails to comply with a California law that requires banks to pay interest on mortgage escrow accounts.

In 2010, the United States Congress enacted the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act which included provisions to correct abusive and deceptive lending practices that contributed to the mortgage crisis, specifically with regard to the administration of escrow accounts. Recently, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Bank of America’s assertion that the California law requiring the payment of interest on mortgage escrow accounts could not applied to it, despite Congress’s enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act.

Bank of America must now face the lawsuit that seeks to compel the bank to pay interest on the funds consumer borrowers hold in their mortgage escrow accounts. The suit also brings breach of contract claims against the bank, as plaintiff’s mortgage language specifically required Bank of America to pay escrow interest if applicable state laws require it. BofA refused to pay the required interest even though some other national banks in California do.

Contact a Consumer Protection Attorney at Lieff Cabraser

If you have a mortgage with Bank of America or any other California bank on which you suspect interest was not paid as mandated by California law, please contact us today about your case. The information you provide will assist us in learning of the full extent of the alleged fraud and in obtaining damages for affected customers, including all profits that may have been unjustly earned by the companies. We will review your complaint for free and without any obligation on your part.


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

What is the name of your bank?

Please describe your experience:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes


 

Credit Suisse Deferred Broker Compensation

Bank

Lieff Cabraser represents a proposed class of former Credit Suisse financial advisers in a case challenging Credit Suisse’s alleged failure to pay millions dollars in deferred compensation after shuttering its U.S. brokerage operations in late 2015. The plaintiffs allege that Credit Suisse canceled deferred compensation owed to advisers under the false pretenses that they had supposedly voluntarily “resigned” from Credit Suisse, when in fact Credit Suisse simply ceased operating this business.

The case is Laver v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, N.D. Cal., No. 18-00828.

If you are a broker who has experienced Credit Suisse withholding your compensation, we welcome the opportunity to speak with you about your case. Please use the form below to contact us.


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone Day

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

Please describe your broker experience with Credit Suisse:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes

HCA Healthcare Fraudulent Discount Billing

Health Insurance Fraud Investigation

Lieff Cabraser is investigating complaints that HCA Healthcare is overcharging patients by improperly applying its pay-now discounts. Under the pay-now option, HCA member hospitals give patients a 10% discount for making immediate payment during a hospital or emergency room visit. The charges are based on estimates, however, as the hospital doesn’t know the real charges until they send the bill to the patient’s insurer.

The alleged fraud occurs when patients overpay via those estimates — when the care ends up costing less than a patient paid via the pay-now option, HCA does not apply the discount to the overpaid amount. The chart below illustrates the problem as reflected in a sample procedure with an original estimated cost of $1,000 that is ultimately determined to cost the patient only $400.

Sample HCA Visit & Improper Pay-Now Overage Refund
Hospital estimate $1,000
Pay-now payment by patient $900 (includes 10% discount)
Adjusted visit cost $400
Amount HCA actually bills patient $400
Amount HCA should bill patient $360 (10% pay-now discount should still apply)
Improper overage to HCA $40

This is just a single example. Had the hospital’s original estimate been accurate, a patient opting for the pay-now discount would only have paid $360. But HCA ends up billing the patient $400 for the visit because HCA fails to refund properly. Patients allege the deceptive practice allows HCA to improperly pocket the 10% discount that should have been added to the refunded overpaid fee – 10% of the difference between whatever the hospital’s original estimate was and the actual visit cost.

While the individual improper overcharges can seem minor, when scaled across HCA’s 174 hospitals and 119 freestanding surgery centers any improper overbilling may reach into the millions.

Contact a Healthcare Fraud Lawyer at Lieff Cabraser

If you or a family member suspect you have been improperly billed after an HCA hospital or ER pay-now payment was reduced from the hospital’s original estimate, we welcome the opportunity to speak with you about your potential case. There is no charge or obligation involved in speaking with us, and the information you provide may substantiate your own lawsuit as well as helping us hold HCA accountable for any billing fraud or other financial improprieties.


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone Day

Telephone Eve

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

Please describe any experiences with HCA pay-now overcharges/omitted discounts:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes

SoulCycle

Athletes working out in gym

Issue: Illegal Gift Certification Expirations
Result: Settlement valued at up to $9.2 million
Year: 2017

Lieff Cabraser represents consumers in a class action lawsuit alleging that indoor cycling fitness company SoulCycle sells illegally expiring gift certificates. The suit alleges that SoulCycle defrauded customers by forcing them to buy gift certificates with short enrollment windows and keeping the expired certificates’ unused balances in violation of the U.S. Electronic Funds Transfer Act and California’s Unfair Competition Law, and seeks reinstatement of expired classes or customer reimbursements as well as policy changes.

In October of 2017, U.S. District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald granted final approval to a settlement of the litigation valued between $6.9 million and $9.2 million that provides significant economic consideration to settlement class members as well as meaningful changes to SoulCycle’s business practices.

The case is Cody v. SoulCycle, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-06457 (C.D. Cal.).