Search
Search through the thousands of lawsuits, complaints and recalls on our site.

Students Sue on Book Prices, Lawsuit Seeks $5 Million

Report Fraud
Case ID: 4949 | Consumer Products | 11/29/2006

Two Daytona Beach Community College students have sued Follett's, the nation's largest collegiate-bookstore chain and their school. The lawsuit is the first-of-its-kind and could affect thousands of college students who think they are overcharged for textbooks.

The class-action suit, filed in Orlando's federal court, alleges unfair and illegal pricing practices and seeks to recover at least $5 million in damages. It accuses the Follett Higher Education Group and DBCC of overcharging students pennies on each used-book sale and underpaying them when buying books back.

Though that may amount to only a few bucks each semester, the students argue that, when multiplied by thousands of students at each of the company's more than 750 bookstores, it adds up to millions.

Co-plaintiffs Thomas Rebman and Danny Brandner also say the college is "complicit" in the textbook company's actions because through DBCC's contract with Follett, it receives up to 10.5 percent of all bookstore revenues annually. In a recent 12-month period, the college reported collecting at least $400,000 in commissions from Follett's operations on the school's five campuses.

The suit -- filed in late September -- is unique, according to attorneys and industry experts, and may have implications for thousands of students nationwide if a judge allows it to go forward as a class action.

Textbook prices have rankled college students for years. Student-government coalitions and advocacy groups in 14 states launched a campaign in 2003 that included a push to persuade colleges to negotiate better prices with book publishers.

National Association of College Stores figures show used books accounted for $1.9 billion in sales during the 2004-05 academic year. New books accounted for $4.4 billion during that same time period.

"Mr. Rebman and our law firm are seeking to recover for every student who was overcharged . . . or was underpaid when they sold back their books," said a South Florida attorney who specializes in class-action suits.

The five-count complaint alleges breach of the contract between Follett and the college, violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and a civil conspiracy.

Before the fall semester began in August, Rebman and Brandner say, their college bookstore illegally rounded up the prices of used books to the next 25-cent increment. Used books that should have cost $88.69 and $85.31 were sold to them for $88.75 and $85.50, respectively, they argue.

And when they sold books back to the store, they say the store paid them less than 50 percent of the new retail price as required by the contract. Examples cited in the suit include the return of a college-algebra book that cost $118.25 new but was bought back by the store for $56.25, or less than half its new price. In that transaction, the student should have received $59.12, the suit says.

A federal judge next will decide whether the student's claims should apply to a larger student body and can be certified as a class action.

The lawsuit seeks to represent Daytona Beach Community College students who think they were overcharged for textbooks.


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

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.
 
An FTC administrative proceeding has been filed against the Internet Marketing Group, Inc., and affiliated businesses OneSetPrice, Inc., RPM Marketing Group, Inc., National Events Coordinators, Inc.; First Choice Terminal, Inc.; First Choice Terminal, Inc.; and B & C Ventures, Inc., on behalf of consumers who bought into multipurpose public access Internet terminal and telephone calling card business ventures since August 2001. The action accuses the defendants of making false and unsubstantiated earnings claims, and misrepresenting their cancellation and refund policies, in violation of the FTC's Franchise Rule and Telemarketing Sales Rule.
 
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.
 
Class action lawsuits were filed against soft drink makers in both Massachusetts and Florida claiming that the products contain unsafe levels of benzene, a known carcinogen. The suits state that the soft drinks manufactured by Polar Beverages Inc. of Worcester, Massachusetts, and In Zone Brands Inc. of Austell, Georgia, 'have a tendency to contain benzene at levels exceeding' the federal safety limit for drinking water.
 
New York based diamond company W. B. David & Co., Inc. filed suit in Manhattan federal court on September 2, 2004 against the De Beers group of Companies, Company Directors, DTC Sightholders, U.S advertising agency J. Walter Thompson, and others for some $100 million, injunctive relief and attachment of De Beers’ U.S. assets.
 
The parties have reached a settlement valued at $9.7 million in a class action filed against Microsoft Corporation on behalf of consumers who, between March 31, 1995, and December 31, 2002, resided in Vermont and indirectly purchased Microsoft operating system, productivity suite, spreadsheet, or word processing software for use in Vermont. The action alleged that Microsoft violated Vermont’s consumer fraud act by illegitimately using its monopoly power. Persons eligible to take part in the settlement may contact attorneys for the class for more information.
 
Become a LawCash Member - FREE!
'Find Money' E-Book
Weekly Email Alerts




privacy policy
YouNewz Beta
IT'S FREE

Report

Report Newz and easily upload your own newzworthy photos from your cell phone or computer to the web.

Share

Quickly share your photos with family, friends, co-workers, or the world with your own Newzpaper.

Read

Instantly find Newz and photos from other YouNewzers and read other YouNewzers Newzpapers.
 
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.

[ Home ]
LawCash
login
Justice is a click away.