Lifewatch Medical Devices

December 2016: This action was dismissed without prejudice because the parties reached a settlement agreement that resolved the individual claims. The terms of the settlement have not been disclosed.

May 2014: A class-action lawsuit was filed alleging that numerous Lifewatch companies involved in the marketing and selling of medical alert devices and monitoring services use deceptive business practices. Among other things, the complaint alleges that the companies contact consumers to offer them a “free” medical alert device (saying that they only need to pay the monthly service fee because someone else purchased the device for them) when, according to the plaintiffs, the company charges them for the device. (Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in October 2015.) (Reynolds et al v. Lifewatch, Inc., Lifewatch Corp., Lifewatch Technologies Corp., Lifewatch Services, Inc., Lifewatch, Inc. d/b/a Lifewatch USA, Evan Sirlin, Mitchell May, ABC Corporations 1-10 and John Does 1-10, Case No. 14-cv-003575, S. D. NY.).

For more information about other class-action lawsuits regarding the marketing of medical alert devices and TINA.org’s coverage of the issue, click here.

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

When a complaint is dismissed without prejudice, an amended version of the complaint can be refiled.

Tags: ,



Leave a Reply

Back to Top ↑
  • Search Class-Action Tracker



  • Recent Class Actions

  • The Class-Action Tracker is intended to notify consumers about false advertising class-action lawsuits filed around the country, but does not necessarily reflect TINA.org’s opinion with respect to the lawsuits or disposition of the cases

  • Sign Up for E-mail Updates