McDonald Class Action Lawsuit Filed for PFAS

A new class action lawsuit alleges that McDonald’s failed to inform its customers that some of its food products, such as the Big Mac burger and Big Mac burger, contain per- and/or polyfluoroalkyl compounds (PFAS).

Larry Clark, the plaintiff, claims that McDonald’s misleads customers into thinking that their food is safe. McDonald’s fails to disclose that PFAS is present in its food. He says it is dangerous to the environment and humans.

According to the lawsuit, “The use PFAS in McDonald’s Products is contrary to McDonald’s brand image, which promotes food safety.” McDonald’s Corporation reminds investors, consumers, and the public that the Products can be used in virtually every media.

Clark represents a national class of McDonald’s customers who purchased PFAS-contaminated McDonald’s food.

Clark claims that McDonald’s “repeatedly denied” the existence of PFAS in its food products. Clark said the company admitted this fact only last year.

Clark claimed that McDonald’s continues misrepresenting its food as safe, high-quality, and suitable to be eaten, despite their admission.

According to the class action lawsuit, “Defendant fails inform consumers that PFAS which can have adverse effects on people and bioaccumulate within their systems are present in high quantities in its Products.”

According to the lawsuit, PFAS can cause a number of adverse health effects, including cancer and liver damage.

The class action lawsuit asserts that PFAS can be dangerous even in very low doses, as they persist and build over time.

McDonald’s decided to use PFAS as a way to save money.

Clark claims that McDonald’s does not have the tools to ensure that PFAS are absent from its food products, but instead that McDonald’s uses them to save money.

According to the class action lawsuit, McDonald’s Corporation’s ‘profits above people’ approach allows it to save pennies per unit and instead passes these ‘costs’ onto generations of consumers who will have to live with the consequences of McDonald’s inclusion and concealment of dangerous PFAS in McDonald’s products.

Clark claims McDonald’s is guilty of unjust enrichment and violating the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. There are also a host of state consumer protection laws.

Plaintiff seeks a jury trial as well injunctive, declaratory, and monetary damages for himself as well as all members of the class.

An additional class action lawsuit was filed against McDonald’s earlier in the month. It alleged that McDonald’s lied about McFlurry machine maintenance companies to maintain a “service-and-repair racket” relationship with Taylor.

Do you remember eating at McDonald’s before? We’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments.

Steffan T. Keeton, The Keeton Firm LLC represents the plaintiff.

Clark v. McDonald’s Corporation. Case No. 3:22-cv-01628, is the McDonald’s Big Mac PFAS class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for Southern District of Illinois.

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/mcdonald-class-action-lawsuit-files-for-pfas/
via IFTTT

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has released draft guidelines for detecting cancer clusters

Multiple cases of cancer clusters in the United States have prompted federal disease experts to review the guidelines for investigating and detecting such instances.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), following reports of cancer clusters in New Jersey and Texas and even players from the Philadelphia Phillies, issued a draft guidance entitled “Guidelines for Examining Unique Patterns of Cancer and Other Environmental Concerns”.

This guideline was created to help state and community agencies identify similar patients with the same type of cancer living in the same area.

Cancer rates in cancer cluster patients are significantly higher than those in the general population. For example, brain cancer affects approximately three in every 100,000 people. Brain cancer is nearly four times more common in Phillies players than it is in the general population.

Cancer clusters are often linked to environmental factors like dirty drinking water and hazardous pollutants. It can be challenging to confirm that a cancer cluster is actually a connected collection of cases and not just a statistical anomaly.

The CDC states that the draft guidelines were created after a thorough review of the scientific literature. Officials stressed the importance of communicating and engaging with the community about the problem.

The CDC recommends that local health departments conduct proactive analyses of data from cancer registry data at regular intervals in order to look for unusual cancer trends before a cluster is discovered.

These guidelines are updated to replace the steps of the 2013 guidelines. They now include criteria that deal with environmental concerns such as chemical and pollutant exposures in a more general sense. In the past, statistical significance was used to determine whether or not an investigation should be pursued. The new recommendations aim to evaluate potential exposures and cancer rates, without regard to statistical significance.

The CDC is also developing templates and tools to assist public health partners in cluster investigation of cancer.

The Federal Register is open to public comments by the CDC on the draft guidance up until July 25, 2022. Comments can be made on Docket Number. CDC-2022-0070 comments can be submitted via Federal eRulemaking Portal, or by mail to:

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/the-centers-for-disease-control-and-prevention-cdc-has-released-draft-guidelines-for-detecting-cancer-clusters/
via IFTTT

Giorgio Armani Telemarketer Lawsuit Filed

A new class action complaint alleges that Giorgio Armani sent him unwelcome text messages and has now sued the man whose number is on the National Do Not Call Registry.

Derek Hasty filed a class-action lawsuit against Giorgio Armani Corporation at federal court in Florida, on May 31. He alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act(TCPA) as well as the Florida Telephone Solicitation Acts (FTSA).

Hasty claims Armani uses unsolicited SMS marketing to promote its products and services to all customers who have registered their numbers with the National Do Not Call Registry.

Hasty asserts that repeated sales texts, of which he included screenshots with his complaint, have caused him, as well as at least 50 other Class members, annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of privacy.

According to the lawsuit Armani used a Robo-dialer.

Armani claims that he continues to send sales text messages to his number.

Armani also violates the law by not providing opt-out information within its marketing materials. He claims that Armani’s use of a computer software program that automatically selects and rings potential clients’ phones is also a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

He is suing anyone who received more than one SMS message from the corporation within the past four years. His phone number is on the National Do Not Call Registry.

He would like the class action case to become certified.

Giorgio Armani Corporation was charged with illegally collecting biometric data through its website’s virtual “Try-it On” feature. This is according to a February class-action lawsuit.

Are you getting unsolicited texts from businesses? We’d love to hear your story in the comments!

Manuel S. Hiraldo of Hiraldo P.A. The plaintiff is represented by Manuel S. Hiraldo of Hiraldo P.A.

Derek Hasty and Giorgio Armani. Case No. The name of the Giorgio Armani lawsuit is 2:22-cv-01339 in United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/giorgio-armani-telemarketer-lawsuit-filed/
via IFTTT

Wells Fargo and Zelle Class Action Lawsuit Filed

A new class action lawsuit alleges that Zelle and Wells Fargo failed to protect their clients from fraudsters who used Zelle’s mobile payments app to steal customers’ accounts.

Plaintiff Luke Hartsock filed a lawsuit against two financial giants in Washington federal court on June 1, alleging negligence and infringement of consumer protection law.

According to the lawsuit Hartsock was defrauded $7,500 by thieves using Zelle to target Wells Fargo customers.

Hartsock claims that a scammer impersonated Wells Fargo’s identity, and used the phone calls and messages the bank uses to contact customers regarding fraud cases on two occasions. Hartsock claims that the scammer even tried to imitate Wells Fargo’s customer service employees and asked him for money.

Hartsock challenged transactions with Wells Fargo. However, the bank initially refused to compensate Hartsock. Hartsock claims that he still owes $4,000.

Wells Fargo & Zelle know about rampant fraud according to class action lawsuits.

According to the lawsuit, Wells Fargo and Early Warning Services LLC (which manages Zelle) are accused of failing to take enough steps to protect their customers’ banking accounts.

He asserts that corporations know about the fraud, and Zelle is a target of con artists. However, they are not willing to invest in additional protection.

According to the class action lawsuit, “The convenience of Zelle’s services has made them a favorite among consumers but also made them a darling among thieves who can gain access to bank accounts.” Scammers can quickly siphon thousands of dollars from their victims by convincing them to pay money via Zelle.

The lawsuit alleges carelessness and violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act as well as the Electronic Fund Transfer Act.

Hartsock seeks class certification, damages and fees, as well as costs and costs. Hartsock also wants a jury trial. Hartsock wants to represent all Wells Fargo accounts holders who have challenged withdrawals from Zelle.

A customer filed a class-action lawsuit against Navy Federal Credit Union. He claimed that the credit union failed adequately to inform its account holders about any financial losses that Zelle fraud could cause.

Hartsock is represented by Nathan L. Nanfelt and Laura R. Gerber of Keller Rohrback LLP.

Luke Hartsock v. Wells Fargo & Co. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01759 is the Wells Fargo Zelle Class Action Lawsuit that was filed in the United States District Court for Washington.

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/wells-fargo-and-zelle-class-action-lawsuit-filed/
via IFTTT

Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) May Signal Long Term Issues

TBI is not an isolated event. Side effects include chronic cardiovascular, neurologic, and endocrine comorbidities. Comorbidity is a medical condition where two diseases or conditions coexist.

TBI is very common among veterans who served in the military. It won’t go away by itself. It doesn’t respect the rules, and it doesn’t make life easier for anyone. The most recent JAMA Network Open study was published online.

It was intended to compare healthy individuals with people who suffered mild or moderate-to-severe TBI. TBI patients were more likely to have comorbidities such as mental problems, endocrine abnormalities, and neurologic problems. TBI patients with mild or moderately severe symptoms were more likely to have hypertension, diabetes, and transient ischemic strokes.

The study was conducted at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. It examined the incidence of neurological and behavioral comorbidities among patients with mild TBI and moderate to severe TBI. The patients were matched up with people who had not suffered a head injury before. There were 4,351 mild TBI patients, 4,351 moderate-to-severe TBI patients, and 4,351 individuals who had never suffered a brain injury.

Three years after a traumatic head injury, comorbidities began to emerge. The risk of death increased for those with severe-to-moderate TBI than those without. An increased risk of early death was associated with post-injury hypertension and adrenal insufficiency.

The study recommends a cautious approach when screening patients for mild to severe brain injuries. Jim Fausone, a Michigan veteran’s lawyer and founder of Legal Help for Veterans PLLC said that screening could help with other health problems our TBI veterans face. “The veteran’s disability can have an impact on their benefits. That is why we are here to help them get the benefits they deserve.”

Fausone said that Legal Help For Veterans, PLLC, a statewide VA Disability law practice, can help veterans and their families to obtain veteran’s benefits.

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/traumatic-brain-injury-tbi-may-signal-long-term-issues/
via IFTTT

FINRA Fines Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith $15.2 Million

FINRA today announced that Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. has been ordered to pay $15.2 million in restitution to thousands of customers who purchased class C mutual fund shares, even though Class A shares were significantly cheaper.

Mutual fund issuers offer a variety of classes of mutual funds shares, including Class A shares and Class C shares. In general, Class A shares carry a front-end sales charge. Class C shares don’t usually have a front-end sales charge but may incur ongoing fees or expenses that are greater than Class A shares. If the purchase exceeds certain thresholds, many mutual fund issuers will allow customers to buy Class A shares without any front-end sales charges. Customers who are eligible to buy Class A shares will not be charged a sales tax.

Merrill Lynch had an automated system that would restrict customers from purchasing Class C shares when Class A shares were cheaper. However, the system often failed to identify and apply appropriate purchase limits for Class C shares. Merrill Lynch customers bought thousands of Class C shares and were charged fees and charges when they could have purchased Class A shares at a significantly lower price.

The firm’s system did not flag in November 2019 a customer’s purchase of Class C shares with an annualized expense of 1.76 percent. However, the customer could have bought Class A shares with lower annualized costs of 0.96 percent and no sales tax.

Jessica Hopper, Executive Vice-President and Head of FINRA’s Department of Enforcement, stated that member firms must have supervisory mechanisms reasonably designed to ensure customers are informed about and receive discounts when they purchase mutual funds and that they are not charged any fees or expenses. We want to remind and encourage companies to detect, fix, or remediate these types of supervisory issues to reap the rewards of extraordinary cooperation.

Merrill Lynch will convert Class C shares of certain customers to Class A shares if necessary, in addition to paying restitution for customers who were harmed. FINRA did NOT impose a penalty for the firm’s exceptional cooperation and substantial assistance during the investigation. Merrill Lynch conducted an internal review voluntarily and proactively, hired an outside consultant to identify and calculate remediation, and created a plan to repay customers, convert shares, and other relevant matters.

In Regulatory Notice 21-7, FINRA provided guidance for broker-dealers regarding common sales charges discounts and waivers of mutual funds. In 2015 and 2016,, FINRA identified sales charges discounts and waivers in the Regulatory and Examination Priorities Letter.

Merrill Lynch agreed to this settlement without admitting or denying the findings of FINRA.

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/finra-fines-merrill-lynch-pierce-fenner-smith-15-2-million/
via IFTTT

What are GWG L Bonds?

Before GWG Holdings Inc. defaulted on its L Bonds, the company encountered several financial issues. In October 2020, the Securities and Exchange Division of Enforcement sent it a subpoena. The company delayed its filing of a 10-K with the SEC and later stopped selling its L Bonds. In the meantime, the SEC’s Office of the Chief Accountant reviewed GWG’s financial statements and found numerous accounting problems. GWG subsequently admitted that its financial reports were unreliable.

The interest rate on GWG Holdings L Bonds remains fixed for the entire term of the bond, regardless of market interest rates. However, because the bonds are called, the issuer may recall them at any time without penalty. This means that investors can always sell them at a higher price, though they can only do so under certain circumstances. For example, if GWG is insolvent or suffers a disability, it may be able to buy back its bonds, but the penalty would be 6%.

L Bonds are a type of investment product that pools money from investors and uses the death benefits to pay investors. Although the company initially created the L Bond to make life insurance more affordable for investors, it subsequently changed its business model in 2018, investing much of the capital in riskier assets. As a result, many investors remained unaware of the material reorientation. The move also made GWG an even greater credit risk.

While the company is currently undergoing bankruptcy, the company issued L Bonds that matured for two to seven years and paid 5.50% to 8.50% per annum. The bonds were high-risk and illiquid, and should only be purchased by experienced investors with the right risk-reward profile. In addition, investors should seek legal help immediately if they purchased GWG L Bonds. If you are considering investing in GWG L Bonds, contact the Securities arbitration firm Iorio Altamirano LLP for a free consultation.

In addition to the failure of GWG L Bonds to meet their obligations, some investors also lost their entire initial investment. The problem stems from brokers’ misrepresenting the GWG L Bond as a relatively safe investment, while the risks were not fully understood. Because of this, investors may now file a claim against GWG Holdings. In addition, individual investors may also pursue claims against brokerage firms that failed to do adequate due diligence to protect investors.

Investors should consider filing a claim against GWG L Bonds if they were sold by GWG Holdings. The company’s bankruptcy filing is the latest example of a securities fraud. In April of 2022, GWG Holdings filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Since the company’s demise, KlaymanToskes is assisting clients in their claims against brokerage firms and full-service firms that made a mistake.

from lawyers.buzz https://lawyers.buzz/what-are-gwg-l-bonds/
via IFTTT