Practice Areas > Consumer Protection

There are laws to protect individuals and businesses from becoming victims of those who seek to deceive or enrich themselves at the expense of others through practices such as false advertising, unfair business practices, and other deceptive conduct.

When such fraudulent practices have, in fact, occurred, WW will do everything in its power to ensure that claims are prosecuted, victims compensated, unfair practices stopped and consumers provided with greater and more truthful information on which to base purchasing decisions. Among the cases the firm has handled are those involving the deceptive online sale of goods and services, the billing practices of telecommunications companies, the mislabeling practices of dietary supplement companies, the illegal payment policies of health insurance companies, and false advertising claims involving technology companies and Internet service providers.

If you believe you have been a victim of consumer fraud or a deceptive business practice, please click here to provide us information through our online form. One of our attorneys will promptly respond to your inquiry.

Some of our more recent consumer protection actions include:

In re Pet Food Products Liability Litig., MDL No. 1850 (D.N.J.). WW serves as co-lead counsel in this consumer MDL litigation arising from the most massive pet food recall in history, involving over 100 brands of products produced or sold by over 40 defendants. The consolidated action seeks compensation for pet owners throughout the country for financial and other harm suffered as result their pets' ingestion of contaminated pet food. The action is pending before the Honorable Noel L. Hillman in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey.

Simon v. Toshiba America, Inc., No. 07-6202 (N.D.Cal.). WW has filed this consumer class action against notebook computer manufacturer Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., based on the company's marketing and sale of particular model notebooks with incorrectly stated memory upgrade capacity. The case is pending in the United States District Court, Northern District of California before the Honorable Marilyn Patel.

DirecTV Satellite Receiver Lease Litig., (C.D.Cal). WW has filed a class action complaint against DirecTV, alleging that the company fails to adequately disclose that a purchase of a DirecTV satellite receiver is considered by DirecTV to be a "lease", for which it charges consumers monthly lease fees. Through this action, plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, recovery of lease fees paid, and a judgment declaring that DirecTV's purported lease is invalid. The case is pending in the United States District Court, Central District of California before the Honorable Florence-Marie Cooper.

Case Update: WW Defeats DirecTV's Arbitration Clause

On February 8, 2008, WW filed a consumer class action in federal court against DirecTV, alleging that the company misleads customers into believing they own the satellite receivers they buy. DirecTV claims that its customers are only leasing the receivers and must pay a monthly lease fee for them. The case seeks, among other things, a ruling that DirecTV customers own their equipment, corrective disclosures, and a return of improperly charged lease fees.

Important Victory for Consumers.

In response to the lawsuit, DirecTV filed a motion, arguing that the consumer claims must be arbitrated, rather than proceed in court, under a fine-print clause in their customer agreement. On May 9, 2008, after full briefing of the issue, the Court issued an order denying DirecTV's motion to compel arbitration. In its order, which represents an important victory for consumers, the Court specifically found that the arbitration clause that DirecTV was attempting to enforce against its customers is "unenforceable because it included an unconscionable class action waiver." DirecTV immediately appealed the ruling.

WW is proud to have achieved this victory which will hopefully pave the way for DirecTV customers to have their day in court.

Please check our website for future updates on the case. Of course, you may also contact us through our Online Form or call our Sacramento office for further information.


In re RC2 Corp. Toy Lead Paint Products Liability Litig., MDL No. 1893 (N.D. Ill.). WW filed a class action suit against the RC2 Corporation, which manufactures the popular line of children's toys, "Thomas & Friends Wooden Railway Toys." WW filed the lawsuit on behalf of all consumers who purchased various Thomas & Friends toys between January 2005 and the present. Plaintiffs allege that RC2 failed to inspect and test toys after they were imported from manufacturers based in China and before they were sold to the public. Settlement has been reached in this matter, and the settlement approval process is currently underway.

Online Merchant Sys., LLC v. Yahoo, Inc., No. 05-4833 (C.D. Cal.). WW served co-lead counsel in this consumer class action on behalf of an online advertiser asserting that Yahoo's online advertising system caused online advertisers to pay more than they otherwise would have for the same advertising space, and that the class' bidding behavior was altered as a result of Yahoo's unlawful conduct. Plaintiffs recently obtained a favorable settlement in this matter.

Casillas v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 2:06-cv-00571 (C.D. Cal.). WW filed this class action suit in the Central District of California on behalf of consumers who were charged higher prices at Wal-Mart check out counters than what was advertised on store shelves. Such overcharges are often difficult to detect and the amount of an individual overcharge deters consumers from seeking remedies at Wal-Mart stores. Plaintiffs allege that overcharges occurring at Wal-Mart scanner check-outs are almost double the national average. This action is pending before the Honorable Audrey B. Collins.

In re: Medtronic, Inc. Implantable Defibrillator Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL Docket No. 1726 (D. Minn.). WW is a member of the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, representing third party payors who underwent explant surgery and suffered related medical expenses due to defective implantable defibrillators manufactured by Medtronic. These devices were recalled for prematurely failing after implantation in patients who have had spontaneous and/or inducible life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias and patients at high risk of developing such arrhythmias. This multi-district litigation recently settled on a nationwide basis.

Air Compressors/Ellerbrake v. Campbell-Hausfeld, No. 01 L 540. WW served as co-lead counsel in this consumer fraud case brought against power tool manufacturers for allegedly mislabeling the horsepower on their air compressors. WW achieved certification of the class of consumers. Thereafter, the defendants agreed to a permanent injunction that stopped the alleged mislabeling and agreed to provide millions of dollars worth of tools to affected consumers.

Allen v. Apple Computer, Inc., No. BC 328000, (Cal. Superior Ct., County of Los Angeles). WW pursued this class action on behalf of purchasers of Apple LCD Flat Panel Studio Display Monitors, specifically the Apple 17-inch Studio Display LCD, the 20-inch Apple Cinema Display and the 23-inch Apple Cinema HD Display, sold in the U.S. by Apple. Plaintiffs alleged that Apple engaged in false and misleading advertising, and other deceptive practices, in the marketing and sales of these computer monitors. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that Apple failed to inform consumers that the inverter board supplying power to two backlights was faulty. Plaintiffs secured a favorable settlement for the class.

Linen "Environmental Charge"Litig. WW investigated and pursued claims against a $10 billion service rental industry that imposed ancillary charges on their customers, such as "Environment Charges," that, despite their appearance, are not imposed by federal or state governmental laws or regulations and are not an actual pass-through of any environmental tax, cost or other charges. This litigation, which was pending in various courts throughout the country, recently settled in large part for substantial injunctive and monetary relief.

Sony DVD Litig., No. 03-L-210, (Ill. Circuit Court, St. Clair County). This is a class action involving DVD/DVP line of digital video disc players manufactured and sold to the public by Sony. Sony failed to inform the consuming public that the Sony DVD Players contain uniform mechanical defects including firmware and optical problems, and suffer from inadequate electronic design, that alone or in combination render the DVD Players unable to consistently and clearly play DVDs. Immediately after class certification was granted, opposing counsel initiated discussions concerning possible resolution of the case. WW, working in conjunction with co-counsel, was recently able to secure a favorable nationwide settlement.