No related posts.

Legal Zoom began in Hollywood in 2001 as a condo-based business and has expanded to become a national presence, offering customized legal forms for everything from wills to real estate transactions. Of course, the whole point is to feed people who seek to access the courts without using a lawyer, which as well know can be a bit of a gamble. One of the suits was filed in Los Angeles, the LABJ reports:

Consumers who go to LegalZoom’s website can fill out customizable legal forms online that are checked for errors by customer service employees who make follow-up phone calls as needed. The package for incorporating a business, for example, can cost as little as $139. In comparison, “a lawyer would charge you approximately $1,480 for the standard incorporation package,” the website states.

The Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit, filed May 27, alleges that LegalZoom misleads consumers by advertising its services as “attorney-quality” and seeks “an order prohibiting defendants from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.” The case was filed on behalf of a San Francisco woman named Katherine Webster, who claims she bought a living trust on behalf of her uncle that turned out to be so problematic she had to hire an attorney to fix it.

Among the co-founders, and the face of the business in its early television ads: Robert Shapiro,  who became something of a household legal name when he was part of the team that won a criminal acquittal for O.J. Simpson.

No related posts.

No related posts.

Wall Street Journal reporter Vanessa O’Connell writes there is a “rising tide of legal and regulatory actions aimed at products pitched as ‘environmentally friendly.’”

Companies stand accused of, among other things, adding self-designed labels that imply their products have won some third-party seal of approval; touting products as “biodegradable” when there is little chance they would actually decompose in a landfill; and labeling rayon fabric—created from tree cellulose processed with a chemical that releases hazardous air pollutants—as made of bamboo, which is merely substituted for the wood fiber.

An example of the “self-designed labels” that imply a “seal of approval”:  the Greenlist label on Shout and Windex products sold by SC Johnson.  The company’s website says SC Johnson itself developed the Greenlist “process” “to classify ingredients considered for use in our products by their impact on the environment and human health.”  But anyone looking at the label on the product might understandably come to the conclusion that the product has been placed on a list of environmentally-friendly “green” products.

That’s led to a class action lawsuit against SC Johnson. Lloyd Alter has described why it may be misleading to think of Windex as a “green” product:

[We] found that Windex Blue is composed of 95% water, 4% isopropanol (alcohol) and up to 1% ethylene glycol, that supremely toxic substance beloved of children and pets because of its sweetness. and wondered “Who could call that green?” Well, it turns out SC Johnson can, because it made up the Greenlist label….So if they decide that selling water with a little alcohol and poison in a plastic bottle is green, they can, because they own the label.

Green labels mean nothing if they are not independently monitored with third party evaluation, Standing up and saying “I’m green because I say so” doesn’t cut it any more.

Earlier this year, a federal judge denied SC Johnson’s request to dismiss the suit, writing, “it is plausible that a reasonable consumer would interpret the Greenlist label as being from a third party.”  A trial is scheduled for December.

In a follow-up to her story printed in the Journal, O’Connell wrote on WSJ’s Law Blog some of the challenges to “green” claims aren’t coming in the courts but from the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus:

Though it has no enforcement authority, its publication of its decisions can expose overblown product claims, and serve to deter them. On NAD’s recommendation, Clorox recently discontinued a biodegradability claim for its “Green Works Natural Cleaning Wipes.” Clorox has switched the claim to “compostable.”

Overstated green claims are concerning because they represent a “potential for insidious deception” of consumers who aim to make good environmental choices and “drive public policy with certain products,” Andrea Levine, director of the NAD, and a former assistant attorney general for New York, told the Law Blog.

What O’Connell refers to as “overstated green claims” is also known as greenwashing, which has been defined as “the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service.”  And the civil justice system will play a key role in reducing such misleading claims.  University of Michigan business professor Thomas P. Lyon told O’Connell lawsuits will put pressure on companies “to hone their green messages and make them more factual and credible.”

–J.G. Preston

No related posts.

As media coverage notes, the Florida case is the 13th verdict against a tobacco company out of 15 cases since the Florida Supreme Court decided in 2006 that individual cases could be brought, effectively decertifying the class action approach there.

The Tobacco Products Liability Project, an anti-smoking group, offers this roundup of other recent decisions in Florida that are likely to nudge up the cost of a pack of smokes by a nickel or two:

- March 10. A jury awarded $5 million compensatory damages award to the plaintiff in the Douglas case. The jury assessed 50% responsibility to the deceased smoker, 27% responsibility to Liggett Group, 18% responsibility to Philip Morris, and 5% responsibility to R.J. Reynolds. Thus, if the verdict withstands appeals, the plaintiff will receive $2.5 million.

- March 12. A jury in Gainesville awarded $5 million in compensatory damages and $12.5 million in punitive damages against R.J. Reynolds in the Hall case. The trial judge later reduced the total award to $15.75 million.

- March 17. The Third District Court of Appeal upheld the $24.8 million award to John Lukacs, a longtime smoker who died of cancer shortly after his 2002 trial. The defendants in that case are Philip Morris USA, Brown & Williamson and Liggett Group.

- March 24. A jury in Fort Lauderdale awarded $10 million in compensatory damages and $20 million in punitive damages against Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds in the Cohen case. The jury assessed one-third responsibility to Mr. Cohen, Philip Morris and RJR; thus, the total award to the plaintiff, if the verdict withstands appeals, will be $26.6 million.

- April 13 and 14. A jury awarded $3.5 million in compensatory damages and $18 million ($17 million against R.J. Reynolds and $1 million against Liggett Group) in punitive damages to the family of a longtime smoker in the Clay case. The jury assessed the smoker as 30% responsible, R.J. Reynolds 60% responsible and Liggett Group 10% responsible. Thus, if the verdict withstands appeal, the plaintiff will receive $20.45 million.

No related posts.

The Sacramento Bee reports that Schwarzenegger (or at least his spokesman) is displeased with the cameo role Poizner’s people gave him in a new ad trashing rival, and front-runner, Meg Whitman.

Since this is a primary, the Republicans are involved in the usual roller-derby effort to get the conservative vote (conservatives tend to bear extra clout in GOP primaries). The new Poizner ad links Whitman to President Barack Obama‘s stance on immigration reform; says that Whitman, “like Schwarzenegger,” supports continuing state benefits to people without legal documents; and ties Whitman to U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer — the Democrat most likely to get conservatives to foam at the mouth — and government funding for abortions.

The zing at the end: “After Arnold, don’t we deserve a Republican?” Schwarzenegger press secretary Aaron McLear responded: ”I totally forgot [Poizner] was running until I saw that ad. We get that he’s desperate to be relevant, but extending his anti-immigrant campaign to Austrians? That’s just mean.”

Oh, and the SacBee calls the ad “misleading.”

No related posts.

At the state level, the attorney general’s office announced it had closed two firms that allegedly charged consumers upfront fees for nonexistent loan-modification services. The closed firms are U.S. Foreclosure Relief and H.E. Servicing. Principals George Escalante and Cesar Lopez, and legal representative Adrian Pomery were also barred from working in real estate, and ordered to make $1 million in restitution through the sale of frozen assets, including jewelry and cars.

And the U.S. Attorney’s office in Los Angeles reported a fourth defendant in a mortgage scam, Terral Toole of Lake Elsinore, was sentenced Monday to more than seven years in prison after pleading guilty in a scam that netted $4 million in proceeds for homes that were not for sale.

Small consolation for those scammed, but still …

No related posts.