To read the column that appeared in the November-December issue of the Chicago Lawyer, click here.

The post Robert A. Clifford Writes Column on Drug Ads appeared first on Clifford Law Offices.

As social media content has evolved from static photos to entertaining, short-form videos, so have concerns over the privacy of its users.

In August 2022, a federal judge in Illinois gave final approval for a $92 million class-action settlement between social media giant TikTok and a class of users who claimed the social platform collected and shared their personal data without consent.

What is the TikTok Class Action Lawsuit?

Techcrunch reported in June 2021 that updates to TikTok’s privacy policy included a then-new section stating the video platform may collect biometric information, like faceprints and voiceprints.

This addition further expands the previously extensive scroll of listed data the app collects from its users.

Since then, over 21 federal lawsuits were filed against TikTok and parent company ByteDance, stating the platform collected personal data without formal user consent, which violates federal law, and shared that information with third parties like Google and Facebook to serve ads.

Shannon M. McNulty, partner at Clifford Law Offices, is part of the plaintiff team and heads mass tort/class action practice for the firm. She has worked on a number of high-profile cases involving various defective products, including a $34 million case settlement against Proline Casement windows and the concealment of their defective windows. In August 2022, Shannon was named 2023 “Lawyer of the Year” in the Chicago area by Best Lawyers® for Product Liability Litigation – Plaintiffs.

What personal data was illegally collected?

The lawsuit alleges that TikTok used facial recognition to determine information related to a user’s identity, like gender, age, and race for the purpose of serving ads—and sent U.S. users’ data overseas to some third parties in China.

The plaintiffs alleged that personal data was collected from posted videos and draft videos that were never shared on the app.

Equally concerning are these lawsuits’ allegations concerning the illegal data mining and surveilling of users of tender age, with some as young as six years old.

How much is the settlement?

While TikTok has denied allegations brought against them, they have agreed to a $92 million settlement: arguably one of the biggest privacy-related settlements to date.

Class Members who used the TikTok app before September 30, 2021, and who filed a claim by March 1, 2022, are eligible to receive a payment.

How does this settlement impact Illinois residents?

Because TikTok’s actions violated Illinois privacy laws, which state companies must receive written consent to share user data with third parties, Illinois residents are in a subclass and will receive the biggest share.

How will TikTok treat user privacy going forward?

Under settlement terms, TikTok will no longer record a user’s biometric information; track their location via GPS, or collect data from draft videos.

The post TikTok Settles Massive Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Privacy appeared first on Clifford Law Offices.

Ratulowski’s lawsuit alleges that PNC knowingly keeps millions of dollars in fees every year even when customers have paid off their financial agreements early. Under current law, when a customer pays off his/her auto contract early, the bank must forfeit fees that no longer apply. Instead, the bank refused to refund customers for those collected fees even though they were contractually obligated to do so.

The class action states, “At the time of the early payoff, PNC charges customers for GAP coverage through the original end date of the finance agreement, even though the contracts are being paid off early.”

Ratulowski has requested a jury trial in an effort to receive declaratory and injunctive relief, along with damages including restitution and disgorgement of unearned GAP fees for himself and all other class action members.

Did PNC fail to refund your fees after you paid off your auto financial agreement early? Contact our experienced attorneys at Clifford Law Offices to find out what steps you can take to join this class action lawsuit. Call (312) 625-6192 or fill out our online form to speak to one of our attorneys.

The post Clifford Law Offices Attorneys Represent Plaintiff in PNC Bank Gap Fees Class Action Lawsuit appeared first on Clifford Law Offices.

The Hon. Edmond E. Chang, U.S. District Court Judge of the Northern District of Illinois, ruled in a 31-page written opinion that plaintiffs in the consolidated bellwether cases survive defendant’s motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment only as to the coverage theories under the Civil Authority and the Contamination provisions of the policies. All of the restaurants in the MDL maintain coverage by Society Insurance, headquartered in Wisconsin.

Shannon M. McNulty, partner at Clifford Law Offices who heads the class action/mass torts practice area at the firm and a co-lead counsel of one of the bellwether cases, said, “This decision is highly significant for businesses, particularly here in the Midwest, who have suffered financial losses due to the pandemic and paid insurance premiums to protect against those losses. We will continue to work on behalf of our client in the bellwether case, Valley Lodge Corp., as well as all of the businesses with claims pending in the MDL, to see that justice is carried out to the end under their insurance policies.”

Valley Lodge has two restaurants in Illinois in the northern suburbs of Chicago.

In its decision, the court recognized that, “All have been forced to modify their normal business operations due to the pandemic – for example, suspending in-person dining and relying only on take-out orders – and all alleged that they have lost significant revenue as a result” in the past year since the pandemic took hold.

After quoting significant and relevant passages from plaintiffs’ insurance policies, the court found at the very least that its “policy does not contain a specific exclusion of coverage for losses due to a virus or pandemic … a standard exclusion in the insurance industry.” [Italics in original] In fact, the court held that, “Exclusions are narrowly or strictly construed against the insurer if their effect is uncertain” and “a reasonable jury can find that the Plaintiffs did suffer a direct ‘physical’ loss of property on their premises.”

Notably, the court stated that Society Insurance may have acted in bad faith in denying coverage to the Illinois plaintiffs and that issue may be litigated as the bellwether cases of Valley Lodge Corp. and Big Onion Tavern Group, LLC, move forward. The court, citing to Plaintiffs’ arguments that “Society, which denied coverage across-the board, allegedly misrepresented the true scope of the insurance policies; failed to investigate individual claims, as required, and instead issued hasty denials not based on individual claims; and Society’s actions have caused an improper and lengthy delay in receiving payment,” ruled that these matters must be decided by a jury and not as a matter of law at the pleadings stage.

For further information or to speak to Clifford Law Offices’ Partner Shannon M. McNulty, please contact Clifford Law Offices Communications Partner Pamela Sakowicz Menaker at 847-721-0909.

The post Federal District Court in Illinois Rules Bellwether Cases of Restaurants Suffering Financial Losses Due to Pandemic May Move Forward to Determine if Insurance Policies Apply; Defendant Insurance Company’s Summary Judgment Motion and Motion to Dismiss are Denied appeared first on Clifford Law Offices.

The sad story of the toxic Sterigenics plant in west suburban Willowbrook continues with the recent discovery of an increased amount of the cancer-causing chemical in the air near the sterilization facility.

Since last August when news broke that air quality monitors detected high concentrations of ethylene oxide along with higher than expected cancer rates among people in those downwind residential neighborhoods, lawsuits have attempted to hold the company accountable for its inexcusable actions.

Clifford Law Offices represents a number of residents who are in various stages of cancer who live in the affected areas. The Chicago Tribune recently reported that women and girls in particular have suffered higher than expected rates of certain cancers associated with long-term exposure to the deadly chemical between 1995-2015. (Chicago Tribune, “The state found more cancer than expected near Sterigenics in west suburban Willowbrook,” March 29, 2019)

Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s administration has attempted to shut down the facility entirely until the problem can be corrected. Sterigenics International is a company that fumigates medical instruments, pharmaceutical drugs and food in order to kill bacteria and pests, but it has done so by severely polluting the air with toxic chemicals around the facility.

A study released last August by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated that the risk of cancer was more than nine times the national average in that area. The easily-absorbed chemical has been on the federal list of carcinogens since 1985, and in December, 2016, the EPA released a reassessment linking it more conclusively to breast and blood cancer. It has been estimated at people in southeast DuPage County could be at risk of cancer in 6 cases for every 1,000 people.

An estimated 19,000 people live within a mile of the facility in southeast DuPage County, including four schools – Hinsdale South High School in Darien and Gower Middle School in Burr Ridge – as well as a day care center.

If you or a loved one suspect that you have been affected by the toxic chemicals of the Sterigenics plant, contact Clifford Law Offices at 312-899-9090.

The post Even More Cancer Discovered Near Sterigenics Plant in Chicago’s Western Suburbs appeared first on Clifford Law Offices.

One of the leading dog and cat food brands is Champion, a Canadian-based company that sells its products under the brand names of Orijen and Acana. Nestle has been indicating an interest in buying a majority interest in the pet food giant for some $2 billion. It has been reported that in 2011 Champion’s sales revenue amounted to $17.5 million, and that number grew to $180 million in 2017. Champion’s product packaging promotes its dog food as, among other things, “biologically appropriate,” containing “fresh, regional ingredients” and even “fit for human consumption.”

Because of these representations, consumers pay premium prices for Champion’s products, often more than four times the price of national brand competitors. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Total Diet Study summarizes tests conducted over many years showing the mean amounts of arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury (among other heavy metals) that are found in a wide range of foods for human consumption. The results of these tests prove that the average concentrations of arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury found in Champion’s Orijen and Acana dog food products far exceed amounts found in foods fit for human consumption. Arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury are toxic to dogs as well as to humans. Such heavy metals tend to accumulate in the body, and long-term exposure, even in small quantities, can cause deleterious health effects.

Pet owners got angry. They felt deceived by Champion and took their cases to court for justice. In cases pending in several jurisdictions through the United States, plaintiffs allege that the concentrations of arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury found in Champion’s dog food products are excessive and dangerous, and that Champion’s representations that its dog food products are biologically appropriate and fit for human consumption are false and misleading. Plaintiffs seek remuneration for having paid a substantial premium for Champion’s dog food products that were fundamentally different and less valuable than as represented by Champion.

Clifford Law Offices has counseled a number of these allegedly defrauded pet owners. If you have purchased Orijen or Acana products and would like to discuss the pending litigation, please phone (800) 899-0410 or contact us via email at petfoodlawsuit@cliffordlaw.com.

Thank you.

Robert A. Clifford, Founder and Senior Partner, Clifford Law Offices

Shannon M. McNulty, Partner, Clifford Law Offices

The post Clifford Law Offices Investigates Allegations of Heavy Metals in Champion Petfoods Premium-Priced Dog Food Products Sold Under the Brand Names of Orijen and Acana appeared first on Clifford Law Offices.

Robert A. Clifford, co-lead counsel on the case, pictured with Kristofer Riddle, associate at the firm, who assisted on the matter.

On Sept. 4, 2018, Plaintiffs and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) announce they have reached a compromise agreement to resolve the Hale v. State Farm class action litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

The Hale litigation arose from the earlier class action lawsuit, Avery v. State Farm. Avery involved a challenge to the quoting or specification of aftermarket non-Original Equipment Manufacturer vehicle repair parts in the 1980s and 1990s. Avery resulted in a jury verdict in 1999, amounting to a $1 billion judgment against State Farm. That judgment was reversed by the Illinois Supreme Court in August 2005. In Hale, the plaintiffs allege that State Farm violated federal law by improperly influencing the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision to reverse the Avery judgment.

Plaintiffs and State Farm have agreed to settle the Hale litigation for $250 million because they believe it is in the best interest of all the parties and to avoid protracted litigation and appeals that could continue for several more years. The settlement provides benefits to the over four million current and former State Farm policyholders who were members of the class in Avery.

As a part of the settlement, Plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss, upon final approval, their RICO claims and unjust enrichment claims. The Settlement Agreement will include recitals that State Farm denies liability, that it considers the claims to be without merit, that it considers that it is settling under the unjust enrichment claim, and that the Settlement is made simply to bring an end to the entire litigation.

The post State Farm Agrees to Pay $250 Million to Settle Federal Lawsuit appeared first on Clifford Law Offices.

On Wednesday, April 11, 2018, a New Jersey state jury slammed Johnson & Johnson and its talc supplier with combined punitive damages of $80 million after finding that the pharmaceutical giant acted with reckless indifference in selling asbestos-containing talcum powder that contributed to a man’s development of mesothelioma.

After awarding last week a $37 million verdict against Johnson & Johnson and the company’s French-based talc supplier, Imerys Talc America Inc. for its talcum powder causing cancer, comes news that the jury found the two companies also must pay an additional $80 million in punitive damages for selling a product that contains cancer-causing asbestos particles that the company failed to disclose to the public.

Some consumers have been using Johnson & Johnson talc products for years, even using it for babies because the marketing of the product condoned it as safe. Years later, comes word that even though corporate executives were aware of the dangers in its talc products, they failed to tell the public about its research in this area.

A jury sent a clear message to the corporations when it awarded $37 million in compensatory damages to a New Jersey man on April 5, 2018, who was diagnosed with mesothelioma that is caused by exposure to asbestos fibers. The New Jersey man, Stephen Lanzo, had inhaled the asbestos fibers from the talcum powder dust for more than 30 years before contracting the deadly lung disease. He and his wife will receive the combined $117 million.

Experts at that two-month trial in New Jersey state court revealed that the company used asbestos-carrying talc, instead of using something safer like cornstarch. Asbestos can cause deadly diseases such as cancer of the lungs, mesothelioma, as the New Jersey man did. And it is made worse when the company fails to tell the public so it can’t make proper and informed decisions.

Johnson & Johnson faces about 6,600 lawsuits around the country over similar claims.

Clifford Law Offices represents a number of consumers who allegedly have cancer from the long-term use of talcum powder manufactured by this medical giant. Many of the cases deal with women who have ovarian cancer.

If you think you have been harmed by talcum powder, and have a diagnosis of ovarian cancer, lung cancer or mesothelioma, contact Clifford Law Offices at 312-899-9090 or 1-800-899-0410 or complete the intake form found on the firm’s website.

The post Jury Finds Reckless Indifference of Johnson & Johnson and its Talc Supplier and Awards $80 Million in Punitive Damages for Selling Powder Containing Asbestos appeared first on Clifford Law Offices.

Some consumers have been using Johnson & Johnson talc products for years, even using it for babies because the marketing of the product condoned it as safe. Years later, comes word that even though corporate executives were aware of the dangers in its talc products, they failed to tell the public about its research in this area.

A jury sent a clear message to the corporation when it awarded $37 million in compensatory damages to a New Jersey man in early April, 2018, who was diagnosed with mesothelioma that is caused by exposure to asbestos fibers. The New Jersey man had used the talcum powder product for more than 30 years.

Experts at that two-month trial in New Jersey state court revealed that the company used asbestos-carrying talc, instead of using something safer like cornstarch. Asbestos can cause deadly diseases such as cancer of the lungs, as the New Jersey man. And it is made worse when the company fails to tell the public so they can’t make proper and informed decisions.

Johnson & Johnson faces about 6,600 lawsuits around the country over similar claims.

The company has denied that its products contain asbestos. The New Jersey jury is still deliberating whether punitive damages should be awarded because of conduct that would warrant damages to punish the company.

Clifford Law Offices represents a number of consumers who allegedly have cancer from the long-term use of talcum powder manufactured by this medical giant. Many of the cases deal with women who have ovarian cancer.

If you think you have been harmed by talcum powder, and have a diagnosis of ovarian cancer, lung cancer or mesothelioma, contact Clifford Law Offices at 312-899-9090 or 1-800-899-0410 or complete the intake form found on the firm’s website:

https://www.cliffordlaw.com/Class-Actions-Lawsuits/Talc-and-Talc-Powder.shtml

www.CliffordLaw.com

The post Talc Powder Being Examined for Asbestos-Related Medical Problems appeared first on Clifford Law Offices.

The settlement comes after several years of contentious litigation.

The magistrate judge oversaw discovery, and also presided over extensive settlement discussions. The magistrate ultimately made a recommendation for settlement.

The district court judge will review the proposed settlement plan and, upon preliminary approval, notice of the settlement terms will be sent by third party claims administrator KCC to consumers who purchased the windows at issue.

The proposed settlement terms can be viewed here.

The post Proposed Settlement in Pella Proline Window Class Action Before District Court Judge for Review appeared first on Clifford Law Offices.