Toxic Chemicals in Fabletics, Nike and Gymshark Leggings?
The newest investigation on our site takes a look at a widely used group of chemicals that provide moisture-wicking capabilities to athletic apparel – and that may also be linked to an increased risk of cancer and other health problems. Some apparel companies are already phasing out use of the chemicals, but others may need a push in the right direction. From there, we have a few recently filed cases for you. Apple is facing litigation over how it handles the “sale” of movies and music made via iTunes, a certain Linksys router allegedly isn’t providing the speed it should, and those strawberry Pop-Tarts may not have as much strawberry inside as you’d think. Keep reading for the details, as well as the latest settlements you may be able to claim.
The ability to wick moisture away from the body is a big selling point for athletic apparel, but some of the chemicals used to achieve this effect have been linked to cancer and other health issues. Now, attorneys working with ClassAction.org are investigating whether leggings from Fabletics, Nike and Gymshark are treated with these dangerous chemicals and, if so, whether lawsuits can be filed as a result. The chemicals in question (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances or “PFAS”) have been linked to prostate and kidney cancer, increased cholesterol levels, decreased fertility, high blood pressure in pregnant women and developmental effects in children. Attorneys believe consumers would not have bought leggings known to contain PFAS chemicals, or at least wouldn’t have paid as much as they did, especially when other brands have reportedly committed to phasing PFAS out of their clothing completely. If filed and successful, lawsuits could help customers get their money back and force the companies to either put warnings on their products or stop use of the chemicals altogether. If you bought leggings from Fabletics, Nike or Gymshark, head over to this page for more information.
Apple is facing yet another proposed class action, but this time it isn’t about the iPhone. The latest case claims Apple has misled customers by “selling” them certain movies, TV shows and music through the iTunes store when the company can and will pull the media from the buyer’s possession should its licensing agreements expire. The complaint breaks it down by saying that because Apple doesn’t own media that it doesn’t produce itself – and merely sells content by way of licensing agreements with creators – it can never truly pass ownership on to iTunes users. This means, the suit says, that Apple is only providing users with a license to use the movies, shows and music for their enjoyment – and that this is substantially different from a consumer going to, say, Target and picking up a DVD or CD. According to the suit, Apple misrepresents its digital content transactions as sales because if it disclosed the true nature of the “purchases,” it wouldn’t be able to charge as much. Want more? You can read up on the details here.
Our settlements page is always being updated. Have you checked to see if you're covered by any open settlements? You can also check out the latest settlements as they happen by following us on Twitter.
Have you ever stopped and wondered how many strawberries are in your Pop-Tart? Well, according to a recently filed lawsuit, there aren’t that many. The proposed class action is alleging that the whole-grain variety of the frosted strawberry Pop-Tart is made with “mostly non-strawberry fruit ingredients.” What you’ll find instead, the suit says, is mostly dried pears and apples, with vegetable juice for color. The case stresses that the name of the strawberry Pop-Tarts, not to mention other representations on Kellogg’s packaging, is misleading given no mention is made outside of the fine-print ingredients list that the filling isn’t made primarily with strawberries. (A few months ago, the unfrosted version also came under scrutiny for a similar issue.) If you want more on the story, take a closer look at the allegations over on this page.
Slow internet may be the epitome of first-world problems, but when the router you bought doesn’t provide the speed you expected, you have the right to be a little upset. Belkin International has been hit with a proposed class action alleging that its Linksys Dual Band AC1000 WiFi router is deceptively advertised in that it’s incapable of hitting internet speeds of up to 1,000 megabits per second (Mbps) as its name suggests. The lawsuit contends that, in reality, the device can only operate at internet speeds of 80 to 90 Mbps, more than 900 percent slower than advertised. It doesn’t stop there, either. Belkin touts the router as 2.3 times faster than Wireless N or WiFi 4 technology, but the case asserts that the router’s internet speed is actually “more than 100% slower” than the older technologies, which allow routers to hit a maximum of 300 to 450 Mbps. In addition to monetary damages, the lawsuit is seeking injunctive relief requiring Belkin to provide corrective advertising. You can find more on the issue here.
~ Forward to a friend ~
Know someone who might be interested in our newsletter? Why not forward this email to them?