Category: Press Releases - Page 5

If you’re interested in participating in this case, please complete our contact form. We will contact you as soon as we can review and process your submission. Submission of this form is for the purposes of inquiry only and does not create a binding attorney/client relationship.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

AT&T SUED OVER DATA BREACH OF 70 MILLION CUSTOMERS PERSONAL INFORMATION

The class action filing accuses AT&T of negligence and breach of contract for failing to investigate the massive data breach for nearly three years.

ATLANTA, GA – On April 3, 2024, two plaintiffs filed a class action suit against AT&T on behalf of themselves and 70 million current and former AT&T customers after an immense data breach leaked their names, addresses, phone numbers, Social Security numbers, PINs, and dates of birth. Upon learning of the breach in August 2021 when hackers auctioned the database of 70 million customers’ personally identifiable information in an online hacking forum, AT&T denied the breach ever occurred and refused to investigate further.

“AT&T failed to protect the data of its current and former customers,” said Douglas McNamara, partner at Cohen Milstein. “If AT&T has the power to require customers to hand over information for the company’s commercial benefit, it bears responsibility for safeguarding it, at a bare minimum.

Only three years later when the contents of the database were publicly leaked on the dark web and independently verified did AT&T admit the breach occurred and began an investigation.

The lawsuit alleges AT&T was negligent in its handling of customer’s sensitive personal information, which it requires from all customers and uses for commercial benefit, by failing to adequately monitor its security measures and act in a timely manner when it discovered the breach. It also alleges AT&T breached its contract with customers based on its assertions in the company privacy notice that it would adequately safeguard users’ sensitive personal data and inform them of a data breach. The privacy notice also stated AT&T would destroy former customers’ data once they were no longer needed, yet 65.4 million customers whose data was leaked were former customers.

Plaintiffs are represented by Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Barnes Law Group, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, and Dicello Levitt LLP.

###

About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the causes of real people – workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers – working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good. For more information visit https://www.cohenmilstein.com

The Settlement Ends The Lawsuit Against Major Long Island Housing Providers Which Alleged Race, Disability and Source of Income Discrimination Against Prospective Tenants

BOHEMIA, NY –Long Island Housing Services (LIHS), Suffolk Independent Living Organization (SILO), and two Long Island residents reached a settlement in a federal lawsuit brought against five companies that own and manage a range of residential complexes across Long Island. The lawsuit was against NPS Property Corp., NPS Holiday Square LLC, Northwood Village, Inc., Brightwaters Gardens, Inc., Lakeside Garden Apartments LLC, and South Shore Gardens, LLC (collectively, “NPS”). The complaint alleged NPS told prospective African American tenants no upcoming units were available for rent, while informing prospective white tenants that there were multiple upcoming units available and separately, refused to accept applicants using housing vouchers, including SILO’s clients using vouchers designed for those with disabilities. The plaintiffs were represented by Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

In 2016, through systemic testing and investigations, LIHS discovered discrepancies in what NPS was allegedly telling prospective African American tenants and prospective white tenants about the availability of housing. This investigation also revealed that NPS was alleged to be discriminating against prospective tenants who use housing vouchers designed for those who have disabilities, NPS allegedly turned away SILO’s clients who sought units for rent.

“Long Island Housing Services has found that apartment complex owners, regardless of how large they are, need to have requirements for adopting fair housing policies and conducting fair housing training,” said Ian Wilder, Executive Director of Long Island Housing Services, Inc. “No matter how many complaints we bring, the market continues to fail to get property owners to do this on their own. Towns and Villages, as the only entities with regulatory power of property rental, must step up to require mandatory fair housing policies and fair housing training as part of the rental permit policy. It is way past time for municipalities to require landlords to professionalize their operations across the board. In fact, for municipalities that receive HUD funding they are required to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing which would include requiring every entity that they deal with take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that they obey fair housing laws. In addition, it would be in the interest of insurance companies to require residential property owners adopt fair housing policies and conduct annual fair housing training to reduce their likelihood of having to pay out for a violation of the law.”

The settlement was reached after a Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation finding that NPS had violated the Suffolk County fair housing laws by denying applicants because of their use of housing vouchers. NPS agreed to settle with LIHS for $105,000.00 in monetary damages, separate from attorneys’ fees and costs, and as part of the agreement, LIHS will monitor NPS Properties for three years at an additional cost of $25,000 per year. The settlement also stipulates NPS must adopt critical policy changes to safeguard against future discrimination, including adopting a minimum income requirement that for voucher holders considers only the portion of the rent for which the applicant is responsible, thus taking into account the structure and purpose for which vouchers exist. NPS will also implement a non-discriminatory fair housing policy, display an equal housing opportunity logo, and provide fair housing training to their employees and agents.

“The damage that housing discrimination can do to communities is not trivial – it is deep and lasting.” said Brian Corman, Partner at Cohen Milstein. “Today’s settlement creates meaningful safeguards to ensure the fair housing laws continue to protect people of color, those with disabilities, and those using housing vouchers from intentional discrimination and unlawful policies that reinforce segregation.”

“SILO’s intent is to ensure our society is totally accessible to people with disabilities. Total accessibility means people with disabilities must be afforded the same opportunities as everyone in our community. Disability or an individual’s source of income should not impede a disabled person in attaining a place to live. At SILO we are committed to preventing housing and source of income discrimination against individuals with disabilities,” said Joseph M. Delgado, Chief Executive Officer of Suffolk Independent Living Organization.

“Source of income discrimination disproportionately harms Black families and persons with disabilities, and landlords must not be allowed to skirt prohibitions on such discrimination through income policies that do not reflect the realities of rental assistance programs,” said Thomas Silverstein, Associate Director of the Fair Housing & Community Development Project at the Lawyers’ Committee. “Income policies like the one NPS is modifying as a result of this settlement also undermine the efficacy of our shared affordable housing investments and exacerbate segregation.”

As part of LIHS’ mission to end segregation, it monitors housing industry practices for race, disability, and source of income discrimination. In this investigation, LIHS’ testers posed as ordinary home seekers to document the treatment they experienced for LIHS to determine compliance with fair housing laws.

Race Discrimination Investigation

In 2016, systemic testing and investigation by LIHS allegedly revealed that NPS was discriminating against African Americans. Several of LIHS’ African American testers were allegedly informed by NPS that there were no available apartment units for rent. However, LIHS’ White Testers allegedly were told that there were several upcoming available rental units.

Disability and Source of Income Discrimination Investigation

Also in 2016, SILO reported allegations of disability and source of income discrimination to LIHS against NPS after they allegedly refused to accept SILO’s clients as tenants. Additionally, two individual complainants reported allegations of disability and source of income discrimination against NPS, after being denied housing. Source of income discrimination occurs when a housing provider refuses to accept a lawful source of income, including, but not limited to, Supplemental Social Income (SSI), Social Security Disability (SSD), Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, Nursing Home Transition and Diversion (NHTD) Housing Subsidy, Olmstead Housing Subsidy (OHS), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) Medicaid Waiver program, or child support.

LIHS’ testing and investigation revealed evidence that testers posing as persons having a disability and Housing Voucher were allegedly told that they were not accepted because NPS had attained its quota of tenants with disabilities and Housing Vouchers. Testers posing as individuals with Housing Vouchers for individuals with disabilities were not told about available apartments and were not able to view them. Furthermore, a tester depicted as having a Department of Social Services One-Shot Deal was allegedly told that One-Shot Deal was not accepted. The One-Shot deal program provides financial assistance to low-income individuals in need of funds to cover the security deposit. In comparison, the evidence demonstrated that testers without disabilities and an alternative source of income were allegedly told about available apartments and were invited to view the available apartments. A difference in treatment based on the protected class of disability and source of income is illegal housing discrimination protected under fair housing and human rights laws.

NPS Property Corp. owns multiple apartment complexes in Suffolk County. Northwood Village, Inc., is the owner of Northwood Village, a residential rental building with 65 units located at 167 Weeks Road, North Babylon, New York. Brightwaters Gardens, Inc., is the owner of Brightwaters Gardens, a residential rental building with 24 units located at 9-15 Hiawatha Drive, Brightwaters, New York. NPS Holiday Square LLC owns a residential rental building with 144 units located at 10 Muncy Avenue, West Babylon, Suffolk County, New York Lakeside Garden Apartments LLC, is the owner of Lakeside Garden Apartments, a residential rental building with 55 units located at 25 Cedar Court, Copiague, New York. South Shore Gardens, LLC is the owner of South Shore Gardens, also known as South Shore Commons, a residential rental building located at 204 Farmingdale Road, West Babylon, Suffolk County, New York.

###

About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll

About Long Island Housing Services

Founded in 1969, Long Island Housing Services mission is the elimination of unlawful discrimination and promotion of decent and affordable housing through advocacy and education. LIHS is a private, nonprofit HUD-qualified Fair Housing Enforcement Organization and a federally certified, approved Housing Counseling agency. (www.LIFairHousing.org)

About Suffolk Independent Living Organization

Suffolk Independent Living Organization (SILO) is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit, consumer-controlled, non-residential, civil rights, mentoring, and educational organization which has been providing programs and services to people with disabilities in Suffolk County since 1985.

About the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law

The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, formed in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy to mobilize the nation’s leading lawyers as agents for change in the Civil Rights Movement. Today, the Lawyers’ Committee uses legal advocacy to achieve racial justice, fighting inside and outside the courts to ensure that Black people and other people of color have the voice, opportunity, and power to make the promises of our democracy real. For more information, please visit https://lawyerscommittee.org .

Disclaimer

The work that provided the basis for this publication was supported by funding under a grant with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The substance and findings of the work are dedicated to the public. The author and publisher are solely responsible for the accuracy of the statements and interpretations contained in this publication. Such interpretations do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal Government.

Press Contacts: Ian Wilder, Ian@LIFairHousing.org; Lacy Crawford, lcrawford@lawyerscommittee.org, press@lawyerscommittee.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Press contact: cohenmilstein@berlinrosen.com

COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL GROWS ITS WHISTLEBLOWER PRACTICE

Christina K. McGlosson, Former Acting Director, Whistleblower Office, Division of Enforcement, U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, joins the firm in its Washington, DC office

WASHINGTON, DC – Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, one of the leading plaintiffs’ law firms in the United States, announced today that Christina K. McGlosson has joined as Special Counsel: Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Practice in the firm’s Whistleblower practice. McGlosson most recently served as Acting Director of the Whistleblower Office, in the Division of Enforcement at the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Under her leadership, awards totaling $42 million were made to four deserving whistleblowers in September 2023 and October 2023.

“Joining Cohen Milstein offers me the ideal opportunity to use my experience and knowledge acquired over so many years in the public sector to represent brave whistleblowers who reveal fraud and misconduct,” said Christina McGlosson. “I am delighted to bring my Dodd-Frank expertise to the well-established and talented team at the firm.”

McGlosson brings more than two decades of experience both at the CFTC and, before that, at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). During her more than 18 years at the SEC, McGlosson served, among other prominent positions, as Senior Counsel to the Director of Enforcement, Senior Counsel to the Chief Economist, and helped create and structure the SEC’s Office of the Whistleblower. She regularly speaks as an expert in the federal securities laws, Commodity Exchange Act provisions, Dodd-Frank whistleblower provisions, government investigations, and legal and jurisdictional aspects of digital assets. She will represent clients in the presentation and prosecution of fraud claims before the SEC, CFTC, and IRS, as well as before other relevant government agencies.

“Christina brings an impressive background to our seasoned whistleblower team,” said Benjamin D. Brown, managing partner at Cohen Milstein. “I am certain she will help expand our ability to represent whistleblowers who expose major incidences of corporate fraud that serve to undermine the integrity of financial markets.”

###

About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll

Consumer class action addresses Meta Platforms fraudulently misleading advertisers with inflated metrics about “potential reach.”

WASHINGTON, DC– The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s 2022 order certifying a class of advertisers who paid Meta Platforms, Inc. (Meta) to place advertisements on its social media platforms (the damages class).

Advertisers alleged that Meta fraudulently misrepresented the “potential reach” of advertisements on its platforms, such as Facebook and Instagram, by stating that potential reach was an estimate of people, although it was actually an estimate of user accounts.

“We are very happy with today’s Ninth Circuit ruling. We now look forward to showing the evidence at trial that Meta knew about this inflated reach issue for years and yet continued to take advantage of advertising customers,” said Geoffrey Graber, partner at Cohen Milstein and Lead Counsel representing the plaintiffs in this class action.

Plaintiffs further allege that because Facebook inflated its “potential reach,” plaintiffs purchased more advertisements from Facebook and paid a higher price for advertisements than they otherwise would have.

Documents produced by Facebook confirm that senior executives at the company knew for years that its “potential reach” metric was inflated – yet they failed to do anything, and even took steps to cover up the problem. In fact, in late 2017 and throughout 2018, Facebook executives repeatedly acknowledged “potential reach” was inflated and misleading due to, among other reasons, the fact that “potential reach” includes duplicate and fake accounts.

The case, DZ Reserve et al. v. Meta Platforms, Case No. 3:18-cv-04978 (N.D. Cal.), is the second false advertising and unfair business practices class action, specifically addressing Meta Platforms’ inflated advertising metrics, that Cohen Milstein has led. In June 2020, the court granted final approval of a $40 million settlement against Facebook in LLE One, LLC v. Facebook (Meta Platforms, Inc.), No.: 4:16-cv-06232-JSW (N.D. Cal.). This case, which addressed inflated advertising performance metrics related to video advertisements, was also led by Geoffrey Graber.

The Cohen Milstein team representing the plaintiff class in DZ Reserve v. Meta Platforms, Inc. is Geoffrey Graber, Eric Kafka, Karina Puttieva, and Madelyn Petersen. The plaintiff class is also represented by Charles Reichmann of the Law Offices of Charles Reichmann.

Press Contact: cohenmilstein@berlinrosen.com

###

About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC

JOHNSON & JOHNSON accused of mismanaging the prescription drug program in its health plan – costing employees millions

Washington, DC – Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier national plaintiffs’ class action law firm, recently joined plaintiff’s legal team in Lewandowski v. Johnson and Johnson, 3:24-cv-00671 (D.N.J.), a novel class action filed in federal court in New Jersey by Fairmark Partners LLP and Wheeler, Diulio & Barnabel, P.C.

Lead plaintiff Ann Lewandowski, a current employee of Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ), accuses the pharmaceutical giant of mismanaging its own health plans’ prescription drug program, costing employees millions of dollars in the form of higher payments for prescription drugs, higher out-of-pocket costs and co-pays, and, ultimately, lower wages in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The Complaint focuses, in part, on the prices charged for so-called “specialty drugs” purchased through a specialty pharmacy, Accredo, that is affiliated with Johnson & Johnson’s pharmacy benefits manager (PBM), Express Scripts. The complaint cites a specific example of a 90-pill prescription for the generic drug teriflunomide (the generic form of Aubagio used to treat multiple sclerosis). The Complaint alleges a prescription cost $40.55 at Wegmans, $41.05 at ShopRite, $76.41 at Walmart, $77.41 at Rite Aid, and $28.40 at Cost Plus Drugs online pharmacy (without insurance), while the same 90-pill prescription costs Johnson & Johnson health plan participants $10,239.69. In addition, the Complaint includes many other examples of drugs that are overpriced.

“We are honored to be invited to join this groundbreaking ERISA class action,” said Michelle C. Yau, co-chair of Cohen Milstein’s Employee Benefits/ERISA practice. “Hard-working employees and retirees on fixed incomes cannot afford to overpay for prescription drugs, especially in today’s inflationary environment. Plan sponsors like Johnson & Johnson have a responsibility to prudently monitor health plan costs and ensure that those costs are reasonable. Prescription drug costs are part of those costs, and we believe it is important to hold Johnson and Johnson accountable for allowing the allegedly excessive drug markups here.”

The Complaint seeks to stop Johnson & Johnson from mismanaging its prescription drug program and to recover excess payments on behalf of Johnson & Johnson’s health plans and the participants and beneficiaries of those plans.

How can I learn more and possibly join the case? If you are a current or former Johnson & Johnson employee and participated in one of Johnson & Johnson’s health plans, you may have been impacted. Cohen Milstein is in the process of interviewing current and former employees of Johnson & Johnson as part of its ongoing investigation. If you do not already have legal counsel and you are interested in learning more about the lawsuit and whether you may qualify to participate, please call 202.408.4600 or PLEASE CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE CASE INVESTIGATION.

About Michelle C. Yau and Michael Eisenkraft

Michelle Yau, chair of the Cohen Milstein’s Employee Benefits/ERISA practice is licensed to practice in Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., and has been admitted pro hac vice in the Lewandowski matter in in the District of New Jersey, Case No. 1:23-cv-00671. Ms. Yau’s years of experience of protecting retirement and employee health plan assets is informed by her Wall Street and U.S. Department of Labor experience. Read more here: Michelle C. Yau – Cohen Milstein

Michael Eisenkraft is a member of Cohen Milstein’s Executive Committee, the head of its New York office, and is licensed to practice in New York and New Jersey. In addition to the Lewandowski matter, Mr. Eisenkraft is prosecuting several other innovative cases and recently secured $580 million in settlements in the Stock Lending litigation. Read more here: Michael B. Eisenkraft – Cohen Milstein

About Cohen Milstein

Contact:

Sydney Greenman (paralegal)

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC

1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500

Washington, D.C. 20005

Telephone: 888-240-0775 (Toll Free) or 202-408-4600

Email: SGreenman@cohenmilstein.com

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

Before making your choice of attorney, you should give this matter careful thought. The selection of an attorney is an important decision. No representation made in this press release is meant to suggest that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers. Nor are past results a suggestion or promise of future results.

If you believe this press release is inaccurate or misleading, you may report your concerns to the Committee on Attorney Advertising, Hughes Justice Complex, P.O. Box 970, Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0970.

Joint settlement provides industry changing framework for NAR, MLS, and other real estate entities.

WASHINGTON, DC– A nationwide class of home sellers has reached a landmark $418 million joint settlement with the National Association of Realtors (NAR) that will resolve claims in four antitrust class actions against NAR. Those class actions allege that NAR and several of the nation’s largest residential real estate brokerage companies adopted illegal rules requiring home sellers to pay buyer broker fees – at an inflated rate – in addition to their own brokers’ commissions. The settlement with NAR is in addition to $208.5 million in settlements reached with additional defendants Anywhere Real Estate, RE/MAX, and Keller Williams.

Under the terms of the settlement, NAR will be responsible for paying $418 million in four annual installments along with interest, for the benefit of home sellers across the United States, as well as $3 million toward settlement notices. In addition, the settlement creates a framework for other real estate industry participants to resolve actual or potential claims against them. It also provides for far-reaching changes to NAR’s rules governing real estate broker compensation.

“For years, anticompetitive rules in the real estate industry have financially harmed millions of Americans. This settlement will bring sweeping reforms that will help countless American families,” said Benjamin D. Brown, managing partner of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll and co-chair of its Antitrust practice. “We are proud to play a leading role in addressing this industry’s long-running practices.”

The settlement terms include extensive industry reforms that will increase transparency and fairness regarding buyer broker commissions, while eliminating requirements that sellers must offer on multiple listing services to pay the commissions of brokers representing the buyers they are negotiating against.

“For far too long, home sellers have faced a system recognized by many as blatantly unfair. Individual sellers often feel powerless to negotiate a better deal for themselves given the risk that offering lower commissions will cause brokers to steer buyers to other properties. This class action and settlement provide justice for our clients and will require important changes that help future home sellers.” said Robert A. Braun, a partner in Cohen Milstein’s Antitrust practice.

In the settlement, NAR has agreed to various practice changes, which are to begin 120 days after the plaintiffs seek preliminary approval of the settlement:

Eliminate and prohibit any requirement by NAR and NAR multiple listing service (MLS) that listing brokers or sellers must make offers of compensation to cooperating brokers or other buyer representatives, and prohibit and eliminate any requirement that such offers, if made, must be blanket, unconditional or unilateral;

Prohibit NAR MLS participants, subscribers, other real estate brokers, other real estate agents, and sellers from (i) making offers of compensation on the multiple listing service to cooperating brokers or other buyer representatives (either directly or through buyers) or (ii) disclosing on the multiple listing service listing broker compensation or total brokerage compensation;

Eliminate and prohibit any requirements conditioning participation or membership in a NAR MLS on offering or accepting offers of cooperative compensation;

Agree not to create, facilitate, or support any non-multiple listing service mechanism for listing brokers or sellers to make offers of compensation to cooperating brokers or other buyer representatives;

Require NAR MLS participants acting for sellers to conspicuously disclose to sellers and obtain seller approval for any payment or offer of payment that the listing broker or seller will make to another broker, agent, or other representative acting for buyers; and

Require MLS participants to disclose to prospective sellers and buyers in conspicuous language that broker commissions are not set by law and are fully negotiable.

The settlement also requires NAR to provide valuable cooperation in ongoing litigation against other defendants. The joint settlement will resolve several cases against NAR, including Burnett, et al. v. National Association of Realtors, et al. (W.D. Mo.), where a jury returned a $1.8 billion damages verdict that will be automatically tripled under the antitrust laws.

Moehrl, et al. v. National Association of Realtor was the first-filed case in 2019, and centers on NAR’s adoption of a mandatory rule, which required a blanket, largely non-negotiable offer of compensation to buyer broker when listing a property on a multiple listing service or “MLS.” Across the United States, there are hundreds of MLSs—which are platforms that real estate brokers and agents use to share listings. The vast majority of MLSs are affiliated with the National Association of Realtors and are required to follow rules NAR sets.

Moehrl alleges that those rules incentivize buyer brokers to avoid showing their clients homes where the seller offers a lower commission. This results in sellers offering high and mostly uniform commissions.

Despite the shrinking role of buyer brokers over the years – caused by advances in technology, including the internet and public access to listings – buyer brokers’ commissions have remained artificially inflated. On average, home sellers overpay such commissions by thousands of dollars on any given transaction.

The plaintiffs are represented by Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, Susman Godfrey, and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro in Moehrl, et al. v. National Association of Realtor, et al. (N.D. Ill.) and Umpa v. National Association of Realtors, et al. (W.D. Mo.); and Boulware Law LLC, Ketchmark & McCreight PC, and Williams Dirks Dameron LLC in Burnett, et al. v. National Association of Realtors, et al. (W.D. Mo.) and Gibson, et al. v. National Association of Realtors, et al. (W.D. Mo.).

###

About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) sent a letter to Congressional leaders on behalf of 39 attorneys general who urge the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives to engage in meaningful debate and reform of the current practices of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs).

The bipartisan letter, authored by the Attorneys General of Arkansas, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania, demand Congress take decisive action to reform the way PBMs conduct business and bring more transparency to their work.

The letter emphasizes the urgent need for legislative action to address potential abuses within the PBM industry. Specifically, the coalition highlights three bills – the DRUG Act (S1542/HR6283), Protecting Patients Against PBM Abuses Act (HR2880), and the Lower Costs, More Transparency Act (HR5378) – as crucial pieces of legislation that offer necessary reforms.

Together, the legislation is intended to limit PBMs from unjustifiably increasing drug prices and to mandate steps that increase transparency of their practices. Specifically, this step encompasses the obligation for PBMs to furnish pricing data to health plans and federal and state regulators in a standardized format. Such measures will empower health plans to negotiate more advantageous agreements with PBMs and enable regulators to more effectively hold PBMs accountable for their actions.

The coalition of attorneys general remains committed to advocating for meaningful reforms that prioritize the needs and interests of patients over profit-driven motives within the PBM industry.

A PBM is a third-party company that functions as an intermediary between insurance providers and pharmaceutical manufacturers, ostensibly to reduce the cost of prescription medication for its clients. It typically negotiates discounts and rebates with drug manufacturers, contracts with pharmacies, and develops and maintain drug formularies, or lists of covered drugs.

Because a PBM ultimately decides which drugs it covers, it can bargain for rebates from drug manufacturers who want to get their products on its “formularies,” or lists of covered drugs. As a result of this leverage, PBMs essentially force drug manufacturers to raise list prices in order to provide ever-growing rebates.

The following states joined this letter: AK, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, HI, IL, KS, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MS, NC, NH, NM, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VI, VT, WI, WY

# # #

The National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) is the nonpartisan national forum for America’s attorneys general and their staff. NAAG provides a community for members to collaboratively address issues important to their work and resources to support attorneys general in protecting the rule of law and the United States Constitution.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Los Angeles County filed a lawsuit yesterday against food delivery company Grubhub alleging false and deceptive advertising, misrepresentation and unfair business practices that financially harm consumers, delivery drivers and restaurants.

“This lawsuit sends a clear message: Los Angeles County will not tolerate businesses that deceive consumers, take advantage of restaurants, and exploit the drivers who work hard to provide a valued service,” said Los Angeles County Board Chair Lindsey P. Horvath. “Our County Counsel and Department of Consumer and Business Affairs are standing up for consumers and businesses by fighting these unfair practices.”

The lawsuit alleges that Grubhub engages in the following unfair and deceptive business practices and seeks statewide relief to stop these violations:

Harm to Consumers

Deceptively advertises that consumers can place delivery orders online “for free” but then charges consumers fees on those orders at check-out.
Uses bait-and-switch tactics to lure consumers with a flat, unqualified price for delivery upfront while adding deceptively labeled “service,” “small order” and “driver benefits” fees at checkout. In some cases, the costs of the fees exceed the cost of the food item ordered.
Misrepresents restaurant search results on its apps and websites, telling consumers that the search results are based on relevance to the consumer’s query (e.g., “Chinese food near me”), when in fact, the results and rankings are based in part on how much restaurants have paid Grubhub for placement.

Harm to Drivers

Grubhub misrepresents the qualities, characteristics and scope of the “Driver Benefits Fee,” which Grubhub charges consumers in connection with Proposition 22. Grubhub deceptively implies that the fee provides healthcare benefits to drivers and that consumers no longer need to tip their drivers because “they don’t have to depend on tips.”

Harm to Restaurants

Grubhub deceptively and unilaterally charges restaurants for customer refunds, which Grubhub issues without restaurants’ consent, and without verifying whether the customer or the restaurant was responsible.

“The deceptive and excessive fees charged by Grubhub at checkout blatantly undermine our goal of promoting a fair marketplace where businesses, employees and consumers can thrive,” said Rafael Carbajal, Director of the LA County Department of Consumer and Business Affairs. “These practices inflict financial harm on LA County’s residents, restaurants and workers and are unacceptable while so many of them struggle to make ends meet.”

Consumers, drivers and restaurants who believe they have been harmed by Grubhub’s actions are invited to share their experiences with DCBA by emailing: info@dcba.lacounty.gov, filing online at https://iddweb.isd.lacounty.gov/dca_ecomplaint/ or calling 800-593-8222.

The lawsuit, filed by County Counsel Dawyn R. Harrison on behalf of the people of the State of California in response to complaints from consumers and restaurant owners, seeks injunctive relief to stop the unfair and deceptive business practices, and civil penalties. County Counsel’s Affirmative Litigation and Consumer Protection Division has retained the law firm of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC to assist on this case.

“Our lawsuit seeks to hold Grubhub accountable for their unfair and deceptive business practices that deceive and overcharge consumers, exploit drivers, and unfairly short-change restaurants on order refunds,” Harrison said. “My office is committed to protecting County workers and residents and holding businesses accountable for violations of consumer and worker protection laws.”

The lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, and a copy of the complaint is available here: LA County Grubhub Complaint-Redacted.pdf.

Contact: Scott Kuhn, Assistant County Counsel, skuhn@counsel.lacounty.gov or 323-719-9606.

For more information on County Counsel’s Affirmative Litigation and Consumer Protection Division, please visit: https://counsel.lacounty.gov/alcp/.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: cohenmilstein@berlinrosen.com

D.C. Civil Rights Powerhouse Sues Northwest D.C. Apartment Complexes for Tenant Screening Discrimination

Investigations Revealed That Logan Circle & McLean Gardens Neighborhood Apartments Discriminated Against Voucher Holders, 95% of Whom Are Black Residents

Washington, D.C. – The Equal Rights Center (ERC) has alleged that two upscale D.C. apartment complexes, Latrobe Apartment Homes in Logan Circle and Vaughan Place in McLean Gardens, discriminated against potential tenants using vouchers. The lawsuit, filed today in D.C. Superior Court, also alleges that Air Communities, the owner and manager of the complexes, created unlawful barriers for applicants who have criminal records more than 7 years old and evictions more than 3 years old.

The ERC claims that applicants with government-issued vouchers face unfair and unlawful requirements, including meeting minimum credit scores and income requirements, and that the defendants applied overbroad eviction and criminal history screenings, which significantly restricted applicants from securing housing at the rental properties.

Housing Choice Vouchers are a form of housing assistance subsidized by the federal government. Under D.C.’s fair housing laws, it is illegal for a landlord to discriminate against residents for how they pay their rent. Vouchers allow thousands of residents greater access to housing throughout the District, thereby helping to reduce segregation throughout the District’s neighborhoods and stimulate economic opportunities for residents.

The D.C. statutes under which Equal Rights Center v. Air Communities, Vaughan Place, et al. was filed were enacted in part to address race-based housing discrimination in the District.

“Discrimination against voucher holders further entrenches the racial segregation that has characterized D.C. neighborhoods for decades,” said Kate Scott, Equal Rights Center Executive Director. “Banning residents from housing on the basis of their stale evictions, irrelevant criminal histories, or voucher status are some of the most egregious, harmful modern day civil rights violations, and we are steadfast in our resolve to fight against such practices.”

Between 2022 and 2023, the ERC conducted an investigation to determine whether the defendants engaged in discriminatory and unlawful rental behaviors. The testing was in response to allegedly discriminatory statements on the Latrobe Apartment Homes’ and Vaughan Place’s websites, which read that applicants will be disqualified based on felony convictions and previous evictions. These statements, which have since been removed from the respective websites, violate several of D.C.’s consumer protection and fair housing laws.

“The claims brought in this case underscore how imperative it is to eradicate discrimination in all its forms and to make sure that residents of the District have a fair shot at finding safe and decent housing in the neighborhoods of their choice,” said Brian Corman, Partner at Cohen Milstein. “Housing vouchers help reduce housing instability and homelessness. We look forward to proceeding with these claims in court.”

The Housing Choice Voucher Program, formerly known as Section 8, is a federally funded housing subsidy program that currently provides rental and housing assistance to approximately 2 million families in the U.S. and 11,500 low-income families in D.C.. Under the program, Voucher holders are free to choose any housing in the rental market as long as it doesn’t exceed the monthly rental limit amounts of the program. The program’s intent is to eliminate barriers that would restrict these families from securing housing in neighborhoods with increased access to public transportation, grocery stores, and well-performing schools. Unfortunately, the voucher discrimination seen in this complaint keeps the program from achieving that goal. In addition, screening criteria that bans residents with felony convictions and evictions further places targeted limitations on who can access a variety of D.C.’s housing opportunities.

“Housing policies that indiscriminately shut the door on potential tenants with arrest and conviction records have no place in our communities,” said Joanna K. Wasik, Deputy Legal Director at the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs. “It is incredibly important that we fight back against such irrational barriers to housing wherever they appear.”

The ERC is represented by Brian Corman and Madhuri Belkale of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, and Joanna K. Wasik of Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs.

The case name is Equal Rights Center v. Air Communities, Vaughan Place, et al., Superior Court of Washington, D.C. Read more about the case at this link.

###

About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs’ law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the causes of real people—workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers—working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good. We have litigated landmark civil rights and employment disputes before the highest courts in the nation and continue to actively shape civil rights and employment law in the United States. For more information visit https://www.cohenmilstein.com/

About Equal Rights Center

The ERC is a civil rights organization that identifies and seeks to eliminate unlawful and unfair discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations in its home community of Greater Washington D.C. and nationwide. The ERC’s core strategy for identifying unlawful and unfair discrimination is civil rights testing. When the ERC identifies discrimination, it seeks to eliminate it through the use of testing data to educate the public and business community, support policy advocacy, conduct compliance testing and training, and, if necessary, take enforcement action. For more information, please visit www.equalrightscenter.org.

About Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs

The Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs partners with community members and organizations on scores of cases to combat discrimination in housing, employment, education, immigration, criminal justice reform, public accommodations, based on race, gender, disability, family size, history of criminal conviction, and more. The Washington Lawyers’ Committee has secured a relentless stream of civil rights victories over the past five decades in an effort to achieve justice for all. For more information, please visit https://www.washlaw.org.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: cohenmilstein@berlinrosen.com

FLINT PROPERTY OWNERS REACH CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT WITH WATER ENGINEERING FIRM VEOLIA NORTH AMERICA

The settlement ends the last class action case against the remaining water engineering firms accused of negligence contributing to the Flint Water Crisis.

FLINT, MI – On February 1, 2024, Flint Michigan property owners, businesses, and adults, reached a $25 million settlement with Veolia North America (VNA), the last private engineering firm Flint residents were seeking to hold accountable for its role in the devastating Flint water crisis. This settlement brings the total amount of the settlements reached on behalf of plaintiffs in the Flint Water Crisis cases to over $655 million. The case, a certified environmental water contamination class action, was scheduled to go to jury trial on February 13, 2024. The plaintiffs are represented by Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, Susman Godfrey, and Pitt McGehee Palmer Bonanni & Rivers.

The class action case was filed in 2016 against VNA and other defendants on behalf of more than 90,000 residents. The class action, which resulted in a landmark $626.25 million settlement against the State of Michigan in 2021, was officially certified against VNA and a second private water engineering company, Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam (LAN), in August 2021. LAN settled with residents last October.

The certified class action maintained that VNA failed to identify corroding pipes, exacerbating the Flint water crisis, and allowed the water contamination to last much longer than it should have, had Veolia recommended the correct remediation, including adding a corrosive chemical to the water supply.

After negotiating the class settlement, the parties also were able to resolve the claims brought by minor claimants represented by class counsel. Under that settlement, those minor claimants will receive an additional payment on top of the amounts they will receive under the existing settlements.

“I’m inspired by the resiliency and courage the families and residents of Flint have shown in their effort to secure justice, and I believe this settlement is an important step forward to bringing a close to the horrible years of nightmares for the Flint community,” said Ted Leopold, court-appointed co-lead class counsel and co-lead trial counsel and partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll. “Our fight for justice continues as we look to hold the EPA, the final bad actor in this long and difficult saga, accountable.

“This settlement is long overdue. I’m glad to mark this final case against Veolia and bring another chapter of this terrible story to a close. Our work continues in the fight for justice for the Flint community,” said Steve Morrissey, a partner at Susman Godfrey and co-lead trial counsel and court-appointed Executive Committee member.

Michael Pitt, court-appointed interim co-lead counsel and partner at Pitt McGehee Palmer Bonanni & Rivers, P.C. added, “From the beginning, our efforts were focused on centering the Flint community and ensuring that the outcome was fair and equitable for these amazing people who have suffered greatly over the past few years. We’re glad to see this settlement reflecting our efforts and goal of setting this community up to move forward and rebuild.”

In 2014, the City of Flint hired Veolia to advise on the City’s decision to switch its water supply from the highly contaminated Flint River. Despite Flint residents raising concerns about the water’s smell, color, and taste, and even after a deadly Legionnaires disease outbreak, Veolia allegedly failed to give appropriate recommendations to the City. Veolia’s alleged professional negligence led to years of delay in stopping the water contamination to which Flint residents were exposed.

###

About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC

About Susman Godfrey

Susman Godfrey is a nationwide law firm of 150 trial lawyers. It handles high-stakes litigation in a broad range of practice areas and industries, for both plaintiffs and defendants. Susman’s attorneys are creative in finding the fee arrangement—contingent, flat, hourly, or hybrid—that best suits a client’s case. With a relentless focus on winning at trial, Susman Godfrey has been ranked by Vault as the #1 litigation boutique in America for 12 consecutive years. Visit www.susmangodfrey.com to learn more about our unique approach to winning cases.

About Pitt McGehee Palmer Bonanni & Rivers

Pitt McGehee Palmer Bonanni & Rivers is one of the largest and most experienced employment and civil rights law firms in Michigan. Our attorneys have successfully supported clients, both individually and in groups, in litigation against companies charged with employment discrimination. In addition to our civil rights and employment discrimination representation, we also handle complex and difficult personal injury and criminal defense cases. For more information visit https://www.pittlawpc.com