|
Search
Search through the thousands of lawsuits, complaints and recalls on our site.
 |
Case ID: 4681 | Consumer Products | 03/01/2006
The "See Clearly Method" kits claim to improve eyesight without surgery, yet they are the target of a consumer fraud lawsuit. A judge has issued a temporary injunction against the kit makers, Vision Improvement Technologies to stop manufacturing the kits. The kits included manuals and tapes that show eye exercises and other techniques. According to the lawsuit, the company has shipped out as many as 5,000 to 10,000 kits a month at a cost of about $350 each. About half of the consumers who received the kit returned it within the 30 days and were not obligated to make the full payment, but many who did not return it within the 30 days still sought a refund for various reasons.
The lawsuit alleges that Vision Improvement Technologies (VIT) has sold the "See Clearly Method" nationwide since 2001 through radio, television, and print ads, and a web site, www.seeclearlymethod.com. "See Clearly Method" eye exercises and "techniques" included, for example, focusing eyes using special charts or props, facing a bright light with eyes closed at a distance of a few inches, covering eyes with hands for sustained periods, and applying hot and cold wash cloths over closed eyes. The lawsuit alleges that Vision Improvement Technologies uses a combination of misleading and unfair marketing tactics to sell their kits, including exaggerated claims of effectiveness, false implications of scientific validity, and misleading consumer testimonials in advertising. The lawsuit also alleges that a so-called "risk-free" 30-day trial period is deceptively presented and ends up obligating many consumers to pay hundreds of dollars for a product that did not help them. The lawsuit was filed by the Iowa Attorney General in August 2005. The attorney general alleges that VIT could not substantiate claims that the "See Clearly Method" set of eye exercises can quickly and easily improve a user's vision to the point that glasses or contact lenses are no longer needed. A trial is set for September.
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 Consumer Products Cases of Interest A proposed class action settlement between plaintiffs representing business and residential consumers of electricity in Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah and Washington and defendants Reliant Energy, Inc. and its affiliates. The lawsuit is pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego. A class action has been filed against Leviton Manufacturing Company, Inc. on behalf of South Carolina residents whose homes have an allegedly unsafe type of electrical outlet--a back plug-in outlet--manufactured by Leviton in violation of state consumer safety laws. The action seeks unspecified compensatory damages.
eral Consumers Alliance, Inc. (FCA), on behalf of its roughly 400,000 members and a nationwide class of consumers, has filed a lawsuit in federal court in California seeking to stop the country's three largest funeral homes chains and the nation's largest casketmaker from shutting out competition and fixing casket prices at inflated, high levels. According to a nationwide lawsuit filed in federal court, Cingular Wireless misled and overcharged millions of AT&T cell phone users when Cingular bought AT&T Wireless. In October 2004, Cingular bought AT&T's cell phone system, after assuring federal regulators that the merger would be "seamless." Several class actions have been filed against newspaper publisher Hollinger International, Inc. (NYSE: HLR) and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between August 13, 1999, and March 31, 2003. 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. The stockholders seek to recover compensatory damages for the loss of value of their stock. A statewide class action has been filed in New York against Integretel, Inc., Mercury Marketing of Delaware, Inc. and Neal Saferstein, owner of these companies. The action is brought on behalf of all New York residents who, since 1997, never agreed to pay for an Internet service, or any other service, from Mercury Marketing of Delaware, Inc., or its subsidiaries, but who have been billed by Mercury on their phone bills anyway. The consumers allege that, in agreement with local phone services providers such as Verizon Wireless, Mercury and its subsidiaries illegally piggyback fees for services that are never provided onto consumers' telephone bills. Consumers allege that Mercury and its subsidiaries have a long history of this illegal conduct and have engaged in fraud, breach of contract, breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, tortious conversion and deceptive trade practices as a result of this conduct. Additionally, the consumers allege that Mercury's subsidiary, Integretel, Inc., has violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by attempting to and actually collecting from consumers for these nonexistent services. The consumers are seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, disgorgement of profits, treble damages as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. |
IT'S FREE
|
Class Action Lawsuit Center ||
Product Recall Center ||
Consumer Complaint Center ||
About LawCash
Link Exchange
Privacy Policy ||
Legal Policies ||
Terms & Conditions ||
Website Advertising Policy ||
Site Map ||
Top Lawsuits
LawCash® is a service of nola3, llc
© 2000 - 2008 Copyright. All rights reserved nola3, llc.
© 2000 - 2008 Copyright. All rights reserved nola3, llc.
