The Menopause Queen’s Gambit
Danielle Friedman, The New York Times
September 2020: A federal judge granted final approval of the settlement agreement.
February 2020: A federal judge preliminarily approved a settlement agreement that would provide class members who have proof of purchase with a full refund for up to six purchases, class members who have proof of purchase that does not show the actual price paid with $15 for up to six purchases, and class members who do not have proof of purchase with $15 for up to two purchases. A final fairness hearing is scheduled for September 15, 2020.
2015: A false advertising class-action lawsuit was filed against the marketers of Bell + Howell Ultrasonic Pest Repellers and Bell + Howell Solar Animal Repellers. The complaint, which was originally filed in 2015 and amended in 2017, alleges that the company falsely advertises that the repellers use ultrasonic sound waves to repel pests and animals when scientific evidence shows the devices do not actually repel pests. (Hart et al v. BHH, LLC d/b/a Bell + Howell and Van Hauser LLC, Case No. 15-cv-4804, S.D.N.Y.)
For more information about other class-action lawsuits regarding the misleading marketing of devices that repel pests and TINA.org’s coverage of the topic, click here.
Danielle Friedman, The New York Times
Is this finally the candidate we all can trust?
This company’s juice may not be worth the squeeze.
This fashion company’s claims fall apart at the seams.
Lawsuits accuse retailers of misleading consumers on the purity of their avocado oil.