|
Search
Search through the thousands of lawsuits, complaints and recalls on our site.
 |
Case ID: 4905 | Consumer Products | 09/08/2006
In 2004, Intuit Inc., the makers of the popular financial planning software Quicken, began migrating its Quicken Bill Pay customers from a service run by CheckFree to a new online bill management application made by Metavante. During the conversion process, approximately 27,000 former Bill Pay customers were re-activated without their knowledge or approval and subsequently charged between $9.95 and $12.95 per month.
Affected customers are former Quicken Bill Pay users who cancelled their accounts prior to Quicken’s migration to Metavante in late 2004 and have since been improperly charged on monthly basis for Bill Pay services they did not request or otherwise authorize. Register your Intuit Metavante ComplaintIf you or someone you know has been affected by this case, you may qualify for a money settlement as the result of your financial/economic or other damages that may be awarded either prior to a lawsuit or after the initiation of a lawsuit either currently in progress or filed just for you, possibly a class action lawsuit. Please simply register your complaint by clicking here for Intuit Metavante, or click the red "submit" button on this page, and a lawyer will review your Intuit Metavante complaint. By submitting your complaint, you are asking lawyers to contact you. You are under no obligation to accept their services and you are free to choose which lawyer you want to work with. Lawyers are usually paid out of the proceeds of the settlement or verdict rendered - the lawyers work on "contingency" by fronting the costs of your lawsuit based on their belief that they will recover a settlement for you. 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 physician education company filed a lawsuit against the second-largest commercial property owner in Dallas. The lawsuit alleges negligence in handling confidential private information and breach of contract. What you don't know could burn down your house. A class action has been filed against Eagle Electric Manufacturing Company on behalf of West Virginians whose homes use an allegedly unsafe type of electrical outlet in violation of state consumer safety laws.
A national class action has been filed in Washington against wireless provider giant, AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. The action is brought on behalf of all U.S. customers of AT&T Wireless who were charged alleged unauthorized billing penalties as a result of terminating their AT&T Wireless contract. The action is brought under federal law communications law and state contract law and seeks restitution, compensatory and statutory damages as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. A Kansas law firm has filed a class-action lawsuit against DaimlerChrysler Corp. over what it claims is a problem with many Jeep Grand Cherokees. KMBC reported that the lawsuits were filed in Jackson County and Johnson County, Kan., over alleged problems with the front brakes on 1999 through 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokees.
The lawsuits allege that after as little as 5,000 miles, the steering wheel and front wheels "shake" and that drivers encounter severe vibrations through the steering wheel, floor, seat and pedals when the brakes are applied.
DaimlerChrysler has never issued a recall for a problem with the front brakes.
The lawsuits seek to force the carmaker to reimburse Kansas and Missouri residents for all costs spent repairing the brakes. ClassActionAmerica is seeking additional information about this case now and will provide it as soon as it becomes available.
The California State Court of Appeals in Los Angeles has overturned a putative class action lawsuit brought against Pfizer’s Listerine brand, which claimed that the mouthwash was misleadingly advertised as “as effective as floss.” The court ordered that class status be denied and remanded the case back to the trial court. The judges’ decision makes it complicated for the case to proceed, as there is only one named plaintiff who bought Listerine.
The ruling, handed down July 11, is potentially significant because it weakens the ability of lawyers to create class-action suits based on false advertising claims.
A class action has been filed against packaging materials manufacturer Sealed Air Corporation (NYSE: SEE) and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between March 27, 2000, and July 30, 2002. 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. |
IT'S FREE
|
© 2000 - 2008 Copyright. All rights reserved nola3, llc.
