Consumer Protection

What began as a Shark Tank success story soured into a major legal battle when consumers discovered that Poppi’s "gut-healthy" soda was anything but. Lead Plaintiff Kristin Cobbs alleged that despite marketing slogans like "Be Gut Happy," a person would need to drink more than four cans of the high-sugar beverage daily to see any potential prebiotic benefit. The lawsuit argued that the company charged a premium price for "sugared water" while hiding the fact that its primary fiber source, agave inulin, could actually cause digestive distress and liver inflammation. To resolve the class action claims, VNGR Beverage, LLC agreed to a landmark $8,900,000 settlement.

A Jacksonville nonprofit museum won a partial verdict against an auto repair shop after a rare 2001 Lotus Esprit Twin Turbo suffered repeated mechanical failures and damage during a years-long repair dispute. The jury found Eurospec made misleading statements about completed repairs but rejected negligence claims. Jurors awarded $11,067.36 under the Florida Motor Vehicle Repair Act after the collector car broke down four times within blocks of the shop between 2017 and 2018.

In a major crackdown on the "next generation" of nicotine addiction, the City and County of San Francisco successfully sued several prominent tobacco distributors, including Rogue Holdings and Lucy Goods, Inc. The lawsuit alleged that these companies bypassed local health laws by shipping flavored nicotine pouches—products frequently marketed toward youth—directly to San Francisco doorsteps. City Attorney David Chiu argued that the companies violated the city’s strict ban on flavored tobacco and engaged in unlawful business practices. The litigation highlighted the health risks posed to minors by "discreet" nicotine products available in candy-like flavors. To resolve the claims, the defendants agreed to a $3,000,000 settlement and a permanent injunction barring future illegal sales in the city.

Following a 2017 plumbing failure in Coral Springs, Frank and Barbara Savalli entered an eight-year legal battle with People’s Trust Insurance Company. The conflict centered on the insurer’s "Option to Repair" clause, which the homeowners alleged was used as a tactic to "low-ball" restoration costs. In December 2025, a Broward County jury reached a unanimous verdict, finding that People’s Trust acted in bad faith, made purposeful misrepresentations, and failed to uphold its duty to restore the property to its pre-loss condition.

The City and County of San Francisco secured a $1.3 million court judgment against property consultants Santos & Urrutia Associates, Inc. and several individuals after years of litigation over unlawful building practices. The City alleged that the defendants had repeatedly conducted unpermitted construction, violating state and municipal safety codes and endangering public welfare. On October 22, 2025, Judge Garrett L. Wong ruled in favor of the City, awarding $755,000 in civil penalties, $105,807 in investigative costs, and $440,000 in attorney fees. The judgment closed a landmark case in San Francisco’s effort to enforce building safety and hold violators accountable.

Kimberly Banks and Carol Cantwell led a class action against R.C. Bigelow, Inc., accusing the tea company of falsely labeling its teas as “Manufactured in the USA” and “America’s Classic.” They showed Bigelow sourced all tea leaves from countries like Sri Lanka and India, while the packaging implied domestic origin. Bigelow denied wrongdoing, saying the claims referred to U.S. blending and packaging. After hearing expert testimony and reviewing evidence, a California jury ruled that the labeling misled reasonable consumers. Damages were awarded to the class, and Bigelow was ordered to revise its labels to disclose the foreign origin of its tea leaves.

Noriko Onishi sued American Honda Motor Co. over a defective 2019 Honda HRV. Despite repeated repair attempts, the issues persisted, leading her to revoke acceptance. The Court found Honda liable under California’s lemon law, awarding Onishi $54,586.67 in damages.

On January 18, 2017, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) filed a lawsuit against Navient Corporation, Navient Solutions, Inc., and Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc., accusing them of unlawful practices in managing and collecting student loans. The Bureau sought restitution, damages, penalties, and other remedies for violations of federal consumer protection laws. The consumer protection lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Pennsylvania Middle (Scranton), with Honorable Robert D Mariani presiding. [Case Number: 3:17cv101] Defendant Navient Solutions, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Navient Corporation, is a Delaware corporation. Navient, formerly Sallie Mae, I

On January 9, 2017, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the People of the State of New York filed a consumer protection lawsuit against Quincy Bioscience Holding Company, Inc., Quincy Bioscience, LLC, Prevagen, Inc., Quincy Bioscience Manufacturing, LLC, Mark Underwood, and Michael Beaman (collectively, “Defendants”) for deceptive

On December 3, 2021, Plaintiff Maria Orellana filed the first data breach lawsuit against Planned Parenthood Los Angeles (“PPLA”) and Does 1 through 100 (“Doe Defendants”), followed by six related complaints. The complaints alleged violations of privacy due to PPLA's negligence and failure to secure their personal data. A consolidated class complaint was filed on May 25, 2022, representing approximately 409,437 individuals who received data breach notice

On March 14, 2021, Eli Bachar filed a consumer protection lawsuit alleging violation of California consumer protection laws, including the Unfair Competition Law (California Business and Professional Code § 17200 et seq.), the False Advertising Act (California Civil Code § 17500 et seq.), and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (California Civil Code § 1770 et seq.). The case was filed in the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Los Angeles County, California. Judge Christopher K. Lui presided over the case. [Case number: 21STCV18290] Defendant Terry York Motor Cars, Ltd. (doing business as Land Rover Encino), a California Limited Liability Company, sold various automotive services. Plaintiff Eli Bachar, a customer, filed claims against the defendants for deceptive and unfair marketing practices. Defe