|
Search
Search through the thousands of lawsuits, complaints and recalls on our site.
 |
Case ID: 4071 | Technology | 12/20/2004
A class action lawsuit has been filed in the District Court of New Jersey against Bullseye Media, Inc. alleging, among other things, personal injury and deceptive business practices in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. Bullseye Media is a Pennsylvania based technology and contract for internet and advertising/marketing company. Class members seek to advance public welfare by seeking a restraining order and also seek punitive and compensatory damages.
Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that Bullseye fraudulently informed computer users and/or consumers via a "pop up" ad, email or via websites that they had won free gifts and prizes including computers, flat screen monitors, coffee makers and other items. However, when the computer user took steps to receive their free gift or prize, they were required to complete multiple "offers" which require several purchases and commitments. Often times, the complaint alleges, the consumer is not advised that they have not really won the prize or that they have to complete the "offer" information to receive the prize they were told was free. More specifically, the complaint alleges that consumers are required to participate in surveys to receive their free gift, yet the surveys require a purchase first. Even when this is completed, the consumer is advised that the status of their free gift is "pending".
At Lawcash.com, it is our goal to keep you informed about important legal cases, class actions and settlements. Our lawyers offer free legal evaluations in tort cases, class actions, personal injury, and other lawsuits because we are dedicated to helping you resolve your legal complaints. Other Technology Cases of Interest The parties have reached a tentative settlement, apparently valued at $1.8 million, in two related class actions filed against online marketing service LookSmart, Ltd. on behalf of LookSmart customers who purchased a listing from the company between May 13, 1998, and April 9, 2002. The customers allege that they agreed to a contract that included a one-time payment to LookSmart for listing services only to find that the company, in violation of their contracts and California business laws, unilaterally changed their accounts so that they were required to make additional payments. Claim forms must be submitted online on or before November 14, 2003, to be considered valid. If you've got one of the Palm Personal Assistant models lying around that had the problem where the internal battery didn't always work, and you'd lose your data if you went to replace the batteries, Palm will replace these models with a refurbished equal or newer model. A class action lawsuit filed in Madison County Circuit Court will now be arbitrated, as a result of an appellate court decision. The appeals court has voted to Verizon's motion to compel arbitration and stay judicial proceedings. The suit arises out of a dispute over cancellation fees between Verizon and named plaintiff Dawn Zobrist. When Zobrist became a Verizon customer in July 2001, she entered into a two-year service plan. Zobrist cancelled service in March 2002, and Verizon billed her $175 for a cancellation penalty which Zobrist claims she paid "under protest." The suit seeks financial and other damages. Several class actions have been filed against the officers and directors of biotechnology company Organogenesis, Inc. (formerly AMEX: ORG) by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between November 15, 1999, and January 30, 2002. The actions claim that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market over this time period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's securities. A class action has been filed against Citadel Security Software Inc. (NASDAQ: CDSS), a TX based provider of technology for security systems, and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company’s common stock between February 12 2004 and December 16, 2004. The action claims that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market over this time period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company’s securities. The stockholders seek to recover compensatory damages for the loss of value of their stock. California Renters Certified as Class Against PacBell for False Advertisements About WirePro Service Sometimes an advertiser's failure to disclose that a service is not useful for everyone can amount to fraud. A class action has been certified against Pacific Bell Telephone Company, now a part of SBC Communications, Inc., by California customers of the company who are current or former residential tenants and who paid for a WirePro optional service plan between March 13, 1997, and the date of any eventual judgment in the action.
|
|
© 2000 - 2008 Copyright. All rights reserved nola3, llc.
