The case

In August 2016, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware directed Google Inc. to pay a total of $ 5.5 million in its determination of a class action lawsuit. In the lawsuit, the class, the group of people who had suffered similar injuries, had accused Google of interfering with the privacy settings of Safari browser, a software application owned by Apple. By making it possible for advertisers to use the browsers of users as platforms for setting up third party cookies, the class argued that Google violated federal privacy laws.

The objections

Theodore H. Frank, an objector and class member, is represented by the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center for Class Action Fairness (CEI). Although Google had agreed to the settlement, CEI is contending the final approval of this settlement.

According to CEI, the allegations of privacy infringement against the defendant amount too much more than the value offered under the settlement. CEI claims that the statutory damages amount to billions of dollars. The institute further argues that the fees and expenses charged by class counsel will translate to almost half of the total settlement value. As such CEI has termed the fees as excessive and lacking justification.

Moreover, CEI has pointed out that the net settlement will be paid to cy pres, a third party, a factor that will deny the real class members the chance to benefit from the money. The institute alleges that cy pres enjoy a preexisting relationship with the defendant or counsel representing the class. With this, CEI claims that this may give rise to a serious conflict of interest.

Proposals from CEI

CEI has suggested that the benefits be paid directly to class members, proposing that class certification be discarded if direct distribution will not be possible.

The response

In dismissing the objections raised by CEI, class counsel claims that Frank and CEI are serial objectors and that Frank is just one objector out of the many class members. Class counsel goes on to say that Google has also paid the statutory damages through the fines that the government has exacted for violation of the law. They state that the lawsuits were protracted and the court competently decided that the class members be compensated indirectly since direct distributions would not make economic sense. Lastly, the Council emphasizes that the fees charged are reasonable and justifiable.

The final hearing for this case has been set for January 11, 2017.

Detroit high stakes gambler Brian Benderoff swindled Michigan physician Sheldon Gonte out of more than two million dollars, according to a lawsuit filed in Oakland County Circuit Court in Michigan. The Detroit Free Press reported that the lawsuit alleges that Gonte loaned 50-year-old Benderoff $2.6 million to support business investments that Benderoff said were in the works. Benderoff signed promissory notes vowing to repay the funds but he never did. Therefore, Gonte filed a lawsuit against Benderoff, alleging that Benderoff owes him the funds.

This is not the first time that Benderoff has had legal problems. In 2008, he was sued by a travel agent located in Atlantic City. She accused him of swindling her out of more than one-half million dollars in loans with a promise to pay it back.

Of course, he never did. This case was eventually dismissed so that criminal charges could be filed. Benderoff was ordered to pay nearly $300,000 in restitution to the travel agent. He was also sentenced to 18 months of probation.

In addition to all of the above legal troubles that Benderoff has found himself in, he has now come under the federal government’s radar from an incident that happened back in June. According to the Detroit Patch, Benderoff and his associates flew into the Detroit Metro Airport from Las Vegas with more than $2.5 million stuffed in their luggage. TSA noticed that one of Banderoff’s associates had a carry-on bag had large amounts of cash inside. The two travelers were stopped and questioned in Detroit. After an investigation, federal agents seized the cash and a Rolex watch. Benderoff told investigators that he is a high stakes gambler and won the money in Las Vegas. His associates told investigators that the money was from unsuspecting investors. They admitted to federal agents that the money was solicited for bogus business deals and was instead used for gambling. Benderoff does not currently face criminal charges from the federal government but they want him to forfeit the $2.5 million that he allegedly obtained illegally.

Even those who don’t rely on injectable epinephrine to prevent anaphylactic shock may remember the public outcry when Mylan, the manufacturer of Epi-Pen, suddenly raised the price of this life-saving medication from around $50 per dose for many patients to $600 or more per two-pack. Although the immediate and outraged consumer backlash led Mylan to quickly offer a somewhat cheaper “generic” version of this medication (albeit a still-more expensive version at around $300 per pack), the drug manufacturer is now facing a federal class action lawsuit for a number of its pricing and marketing practices. Read on to learn more about this lawsuit and how it could affect the future of Epi-Pen pricing and availability.

Why is Mylan being sued?

In addition to offering a “generic” version of its Epi-Pen for sale at a relative bargain of $300, Mylan is alleged to have classified the non-generic Epi-Pen as a generic drug for Medicaid patients, allowing it to pay much lower reimbursement rates to doctors and clinics even while patients benefited from the Mylan name. If these allegations are found to be true, it would mean that Mylan committed Medicaid fraud and raked in extra profits at taxpayers’ expense.

Mylan is also alleged to have deliberately packaged its Epi-Pens in a two-pack for U.S. sale only, inflating its profits by making it impossible for consumers to purchase only a single Epi-Pen. Meanwhile, those who purchase this medication outside the U.S. (including Canadian patients) are able to purchase single packages, minimizing both waste and out-of-pocket costs.

What potential outcomes could result from this case?

Currently, more than 100 plaintiffs have joined the class against Mylan, alleging financial and sometimes even physical harm from the company’s alleged mercenary moves. However, this class hasn’t yet been certified, so the case is far from over.

If this lawsuit is eventually successful, it’s likely Mylan will be assessed a steep monetary judgment that will be divided among the plaintiffs for their physical, emotional, and financial suffering. The court may also order injunctive relief — for example, requiring Mylan to lower the cost of its Epi-Pen (or the generic version), sell the Epi-Pen in single packs, or make rebates or coupons available for consumers whose income is below a certain threshold.