October 5th, 2020
In September 2020, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Samsung Electronics America for allegedly falsely marketing its Galaxy S7 cellphones as water resistant when, according to the complaint, they are not. Plaintiffs claim that advertising materials for the cellphones show people snorkeling, surfing, and kayaking with their phones and represents that the phones “repel spills,
September 30th, 2020
August 2020: A state court judge granted preliminary approval of a proposed settlement agreement. According to its terms, class members may receive a cash award in an amount that depends upon a variety of factors, including the number of claims filed and whether a claimant provides proof of purchase. A final fairness hearing is scheduled
February 19th, 2020
January 2020: A federal judge granted final approval of a settlement agreement that would provide class members with either a 12-month extended warranty on their headphones or a cash award. September 2018: A class-action lawsuit was filed against Plantronics, Inc. for allegedly falsely marketing its BackBeat FIT wireless headphones as “sports headphones” that are “sweatproof”
May 2nd, 2019
A class-action lawsuit was filed against Bose Corporation for allegedly misleadingly marketing its SoundSport, SoundSport Free, and SoundSport Pulse wireless headphones as being resistant to sweat, weather, and water when, according to the plaintiffs, headphones that have been exposed to moisture, sweat, and water do not function as advertised. In addition, the complaint claims that
June 8th, 2018
In May 2018, a federal judge granted in part and denied in part Apple’s motion to dismiss a false advertising class-action lawsuit that was originally filed against it in September 2017. The complaint, which was amended in December 2017, alleges that the company falsely markets Powerbeats headphones as “Sweat & Water Resistant” and suited for
February 16th, 2018
In February 2018, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Samsung Electronics America for allegedly falsely advertising that Samsung Galaxy S7 phones are water-resistant when, according to plaintiffs, they are not. (Kolodziej et al v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case No. 18-cv-768, N. D. CA.) For more of TINA.org’s coverage of Samsung, click here.
July 25th, 2017
January 2017: The appeal was voluntarily dismissed, the reasons for which have not been disclosed. (Case No. 16-3318, 3rd Cir.) August 2016: The named plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal regarding the July 2016 dismissal. July 2016: A federal judge granted the company’s motion to dismiss finding that, among other things, plaintiffs failed to plead
July 6th, 2017
March 2016: A federal judge dismissed this action finding that plaintiffs did not satisfy the heightened-pleading standard for fraud-based claims and did not state a plausible claim. The dismissal was . May 2015: Plaintiffs filed another complaint making similar allegations. March 2015: A federal judge dismissed a false advertising class-action lawsuit against Apple. The complaint,
September 20th, 2016
In September 2016, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Samsung Electronics America for allegedly falsely advertising its Galaxy S7 cellphones as water resistant when such claims are not true. (Velasquez-Reyes et al v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case No. 16-cv-1953, C. D. CA.) For more information about other class-action lawsuits regarding cellphones and TINA.org’s coverage
June 9th, 2016
In June 2016, a false advertising class-action lawsuit against Cashforiphones.com (a company that buys used iPhones, smartphones, laptop computers, and tablets) was transferred from a court in California to one in Nevada. The complaint, which was originally filed in March 2015, alleges that the company runs a bait and switch scam where the company generates
April 5th, 2021
Allegations: Deceptively inflating the mAh ratings for Onn power banks
November 13th, 2020
November 2019: A federal judge dismissed claims that the company misrepresented the size of the screen, but allowed claims that the company misrepresented the pixel count to move forward. December 2018: A class-action lawsuit was filed against Apple for allegedly deceptively advertising that the screens of the iPhone X, iPhone XS, and iPhone XS Max
November 5th, 2020
September 2020: The case was transferred to another court in California where a related case, Soo et al v. Lorex Corp. et al (Case No. 20-cv-1437, N.D. Cal.), is pending. (Case No. 20-cv-6606, N.D. Cal.) April 2020: A class-action lawsuit was filed against Lorex Corp. for allegedly misleadingly advertising that consumers can monitor their home
May 14th, 2020
April 2020: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. To read the decision, click here. November 2018: A federal judge dismissed this case finding that the complaint failed to state a plausible claim. December 2014: A class-action lawsuit was filed against Apple alleging, among other things,
April 7th, 2020
EPA warns of products marketed with unproven and potentially dangerous claims.
February 24th, 2020
In February 2020, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Unreal Mobile for allegedly engaging in a bait-and-switch scheme where it falsely advertises that consumers who have its “unlimited talk, text and 1 GB of data” monthly plans could roll over up to 500MB of unused data to the next month for no additional fees when,
September 24th, 2019
February 2019: The parties notified the Court that they reached a settlement agreement, the terms of which have not been disclosed. August 2015: A federal judge dismissed some of the claims in this complaint, including the storage capacity claims and some of the benchmarking manipulation claims (the storage capacity claims were dismissed and the dismissed
April 2nd, 2019
February 2018: This action was dismissed because the parties reached a settlement agreement, the terms of which have not been disclosed. November 2017: A false advertising class-action lawsuit was filed against T-Mobile. Specifically, plaintiffs claim that T-Mobile deceptively advertises that customers will receive four telephone lines with unlimited minutes, text messages, and data for $100