A Timeline of Monsanto’s Roundup Controversy

Monsanto is no stranger to controversy. This is the company that brought us Agent Orange, an herbicide deployed during the Vietnam War that wound up traumatizing both the Vietnamese and our own troops. (Monsanto would later reach a $180 million settlement with Vietnam vets over diseases like leukemia, Hodgkin’s disease, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Parkinson’s disease, and respiratory cancer.)

Hold Monsanto Accountable

In 1974, four years after the U.S. stopped using Agent Orange, Monsanto introduced Roundup (glyphosate)—another powerful herbicide that quickly became a mainstay on most American farms.

But like Agent Orange, Roundup would be linked to cancer. This herbicide, too, could wind up costing the company millions.



Monsanto patents and releases Roundup-Ready seeds, which are genetically modified to withstand the ubiquitous Roundup herbicide. (These seeds/crops are known as GMCs: genetically modified crops.) This allows farmers to kill weeds (in the short term, at least) without also dooming their own crops.

Over the next 20 years, Roundup-Ready crops will come to dominate their respective markets, eventually reaching a 90% share.

Thanks to the Roundup-Ready patent and relevant legal protections—and Monsanto’s aggressive acquisitions of its competitors—some argue that Monsanto has a monopoly on the biotech industry. (Without question, it is the largest biotech company in the world.)


The Oscar-nominated documentary Food, Inc. is released on June 12. The film shows Monsanto in a harsh light, portraying the company as mobilizing an army of attorneys to bully farmers into using their Roundup-Ready soybeans—and suing those who won’t cooperate.

Importantly, the film emphasizes that the Roundup-Ready seeds are “terminating” seeds. That means farmers can’t replant them; instead, they must go back to Monsanto to buy more seeds whenever they run out.

Food, Inc. inflicts so much damage on Monsanto’s reputation that the company creates several pages on its website just to respond to the charges lobbed in the film.


Entropy—a peer-reviewed scientific journal based in Switzerland—publishes a study that concludes

glyphosate enhances the damaging effects of other food borne chemical residues and environmental toxins. Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body.

According to the study, one of the consequences of this negative impact is cancer.

Hold Monsanto Accountable


In March, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, or IARC (part of the World Health Organization, or WHO) assesses the potential cancer-causing (carcinogenic) effects of glyphosate (Roundup). It determines that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

That fall, plaintiffs file the first of at least 25 lawsuits against Monsanto over Roundup’s allegedly cancer-causing effects. Many plaintiffs, like Yolanda Mendoza, just sprayed Roundup on their yard every week.

Ms. Mendoza, a mother of three, contracted Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma in 2013. (After intensive chemotherapy, her cancer is currently in remission.)

“What everyone has in common is that they all used Roundup and they all have non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.”

Her attorney Robin L. Greenwald tells CBS News, “Some people are landscapers, some people are migrant farm workers, some people are farmers. What everyone has in common is that they all used Roundup and they all have non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.”

For the year, Monsanto rakes in $4.75 billion in herbicide sales.


In April, the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (JOME) publishes a study that concludes that herbicides like glyphosate are “associated with a high risk of cutaneous melanoma” (skin cancer), “in particular among those exposed to occupational sun exposure.”

In September, pharmaceutical giant Bayer AG announces it will buy Monsanto for $66 billion, raising serious concerns about rising prices for farmers. (This is the second massive merger of the year after the Dow-DuPont deal.)

Later that month, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) finds trace amounts of Roundup in various oatmeals, cereals, and baby foods.

The next month, federal judges consolidate dozens of Monsanto Roundup lawsuits into a multi-district litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of California.


If you or a loved one contracted cancer after using Roundup, please contact us today to explore your legal options. Our firm is one of the most successful consumer protection firms in the country, with more than 300 attorneys and a support staff of 1,500. We have a history of standing up to bullies and have never represented a large corporation—that’s why our motto is “For the People.”

We may be able to help you get relief for medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other expenses. Don’t wait; these lawsuits are time-sensitive, and you may be owed compensation.

5 FAQs About the New 9/11 Lawsuits

1. What is JASTA?

 The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, or JASTA, allows victims of terrorist acts committed on American soil to file lawsuits against foreign governments who helped carry out the attacks. It creates an exemption to the foreign sovereign immunity that typically protects countries in these kinds of incidents.

Senator John Cornyn (R – TX) introduced the bill in September 2015. A year later, President Obama vetoed the bill, citing national security and diplomatic concerns. But days later, he was overridden by Congress via a 97-to-1 vote in the Senate and a 348-to-77 vote in the House.

JASTA was enacted on September 28, 2016. People who suffered physical, financial, or property damage as a result of the 9/11 attacks can now seek relief from foreign governments that they feel played a role in the attacks.

Stephanie DeSimone—the wife of Navy Commander Patrick Dunn, who died at the Pentagon on September 11—filed a 9/11 lawsuit against Saudi Arabia shortly after JASTA’s passing.

2. Why did Obama try to veto JASTA?

The main reason Obama vetoed JASTA (only to be overridden by Congress) is because the law could open up the U.S. to litigation over its military actions abroad (drone strikes, civilian casualties, etc.). Even if the U.S. was not convicted of wrongdoing, Obama argued, the evidence it would have to supply in the discovery phase of trial could jeopardize national security.

In his statement to Congress, President Obama said, “Enacting [this legislation] into law… would neither protect Americans from terrorist attacks nor improve the effectiveness of our response to such attacks.”

Of course, the point of the law is not protection or retaliation but relief for victims of 9/11 and accountability for its perpetrators.

Hold Them Accountable

3. Did the Saudi government play a role in 9/11?

Maybe. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi citizens (the other four were from the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Lebanon).

Though the 9/11 Commission Report “found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization,” it also noted, “Saudi Arabia has long been considered the primary source of al Qaeda funding.” Al Qaeda’s Osama bin Laden, of course, claimed responsibility for orchestrating the 9/11 attacks.

Also of note: Saudi Arabia spent more than $3 million dollars to lobby against JASTA, which also raised some eyebrows. If they don’t bear any responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, why did they try so hard to kill the bill?

As Senator Charles Schumer (D – NY) put it, “If the Saudis did nothing wrong, they should not fear this legislation.”

4. Who qualifies for a 9/11 lawsuit?

Anyone who suffered physical, financial, or property damage from the 9/11 attacks is now eligible to seek redress from foreign governments like Saudi Arabia’s, assuming they can prove liability on the part of that government.

Importantly, eligible parties may have filed domestic 9/11-related lawsuits in the past. For example, a potential client may have been denied redress in an earlier case because he was working at the time of his or her injury and awarded worker’s compensation. Whether a past lawsuit was successful has no bearing on the new 9/11 lawsuits that will be filed against foreign governments.

Qualifying parties may include:

  • Business owners in Lower Manhattan/the Financial District
  • First responders (police, firefighters, etc.) on 9/11
  • Spouses and family members of 9/11 casualties
  • People working in the Pentagon or at Ground Zero on 9/11
  • Cleanup workers at the attack sites

5. What types of relief do people seek in a 9/11 lawsuit?

Depending on the circumstances of the case, plaintiffs may seek relief in a 9/11 lawsuit for the following:

  • Property damage
  • Loss of business/wages
  • Medical bills
  • Pain and suffering
  • Funeral expenses
  • Punitive damages
  • Attorney fees

Our attorneys have extensive experience with complex litigation. As one of the largest consumer protection firms in the country—with 300+ attorneys and a support staff of more than 1,500—we are one of the few with the resources to take on a foreign government like Saudi Arabia. To date, we have won $2 billion for 200,000 clients.

If you or a loved one suffered losses as a result of these horrific attacks, the Saudi government may be partially to blame, and you could be owed compensation. For a free, no-obligation case review, contact us today or call 888-522-5237.

Jury Hammers R.J. Reynolds with $6.4M Verdict for Family of Emphysema Victim

Last week, a jury in Florida found R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company partially to blame for the death of John Price, a 74-year-old man who died in 2010 from emphysema.

ClassAction.com attorneys filed the lawsuit on behalf of Mr. Price’s family. They claimed that R.J. Reynolds, which produces brands like Camel and Lucky Strike, was guilty of hiding the dangers of smoking throughout most of the 20th century, making the company liable for Mr. Price’s nicotine addiction and eventual death.

Fight Big Tobacco

Tobacco Industry Denied Health Risks for 25 Years

Reynolds_Building_WS_2Research published as early as the 1950s showed that cigarettes were a leading cause of lung disease. Starting in 1965, tobacco companies were required to print Surgeon General’s warnings on cigarette packs.

But despite this knowledge, the tobacco industry publicly denied that smoking cigarettes was a health risk up until the 1990s.

Throughout the 20th century, smoking was marketed as a leisurely activity by tobacco companies who glossed over the extremely addictive nature of its primary ingredient, nicotine. They went so far as to group the habit-forming effects of smoking with chocolate consumption or online shopping, though clearly neither of these vices has the same deadly effects as tobacco.

“The web of deceit was massive and well-funded and extraordinarily planned,” said ClassAction.com attorney Keith Mitnik.

John Price Was “Ideal Customer” for R.J. Reynolds

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) causes blockages of the airways, resulting in diseases like asthma, chronic bronchitis and emphysema. Eight out of 10 COPD-related deaths are caused by smoking.

Those who start smoking when their lungs are still developing—like Mr. Price—are even more at risk of developing COPD-related diseases later on.

Mr. Price’s death is a tragic example of how addicting nicotine can be. He started smoking as a teen and continued for more than 30 years, smoking an average of three packs a day before eventually succumbing to emphysema.

“John Price was not some rogue smoker… He is precisely what it was all about for [R.J. Reynolds].”

“John Price was not some rogue smoker,” said Mitnik in his closing remarks. “He is precisely what it was all about for [R.J. Reynolds]. Someone that would smoke all day long, because that’s where the money comes from.”

“They say, ‘We’re changed’… It’s new faces but the same problem. They still have an iron grip on nicotine addiction.”

Lawsuits Pile Up After Engle Decision

Florida has a long history of big wins against Big Tobacco. In 1994, a class action lawsuit (Engle v. Liggett Group Inc.) found tobacco companies guilty of hiding the dangerous side effects of smoking for most of the 20th century, resulting in a $145 billion verdict. Though the verdict was decertified in 2006, individuals can still use the jury’s findings in court if they demonstrate a link between nicotine addiction and a smoking-related disease.

Mr. Price’s case was just one of three Engle progeny lawsuits filed against R.J. Reynolds within a week.

Mr. Price’s case was just one of three Engle progeny lawsuits filed against R.J. Reynolds within a week. The company paid $3 million to the widow of Julius Smith, who died from emphysema. R.J. Reynolds was also hit with a $9.1 million verdict alongside Philip Morris for the death of Dennis Oshinsky, who passed away from lung cancer.

File A Lawsuit

Mr. Mitnik, who also obtained a $90.8 million verdict against R.J. Reynolds in 2010, has lost faith in the company’s capacity to change.

“They acknowledge it’s addictive,” he said. “But that’s it and then it’s all sugar-coated, downplayed. Anything but acknowledging openly that’s the problem.”

Florida Man Files Discrimination Suit Alleging Server Referred to Him with Slur

With the help of ClassAction.com attorneys, Frantz Leger of Florida has filed a racial discrimination lawsuit against Mi Colombia Bakery, Inc., parent company of the Los Perros chain of fast food restaurants. Mr. Leger, who is black, says he was handed a receipt at a Los Perros that referred to him with a racial slur. The restaurant denies discriminating against Mr. Leger and blames Autocorrect for the slur.

The complaint, filed in the Southern District Court of Florida, alleges that on July 2, 2015 Mr. Leger experienced racial discrimination at Los Perros’ Miami Beach location. The complaint includes an alleged copy of the receipt, which shows the slur next to both the table and order number.

The receipt given to Mr Leger

Read the Complaint

On March 18, 2016, Mr. Leger filed a racial discrimination charge with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR). Mi Colombia owner Juan Hoyos denied the charge and offered a rebuttal, but on September 19, the FCHR determined that reasonable cause existed that an unlawful practice occurred, and advised Mr. Leger that he could file a civil suit.

A little over a week later, Mr. Leger did just that. The attorney who filed the complaint, Michael Hanna, said, “It’s sad that in this day and age we still see the type of discrimination alleged in the Complaint.” Mr. Hanna adds:

“Unfortunately ignorance persists and there are still people out there that think that others should be treated differently just because of their race, religion, or sex. We will not stand for this type of injustice. Thankfully our laws make this type of conduct illegal.”

Complaint Says Discrimination Was Intentional

Among other charges, the complaint alleges the following:

  • That the racial discrimination was intentional.
  • That as a result of this discrimination, Los Perros denied Mr. Leger the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, and accommodations of its restaurant, and furthermore intended to discourage him from revisiting the restaurant because of his race.
  • That calling Mr. Leger a racial slur creates a hostile environment.
  • That the defendant did nothing to remedy its discrimination.

The complaint also says that Mr. Leger was “disgusted, humiliated, and appalled” by the incident, and notes that the threat of repeated injury exists, “causing Plaintiff and other black individuals to… continue to suffer irreparable injury in the denial of their civil rights.”

Mr. Leger was “disgusted, humiliated, and appalled” by the incident.

Mr. Leger seeks an injunction against the illegal discrimination, compensatory and punitive damages, attorney fees, and any other relief available under the applicable civil rights statutes.

A Case of Autocorrect Gone Wrong?

In his written response to the March 2016 FCHR discrimination charge, Mi Colombia owner Juan Hoyos argued the following:

  • The company never refused accommodation or service to Mr. Leger and therefore did not violate state law.
  • The server never vocally called Mr. Leger a racial slur.
  • The server did not call Mr. Leger a racial slur “on multiple occasions” because it was allegedly written on just one receipt.

Mr. Hoyos also said that after “exhaustive investigation,” there was only one logical explanation for what occurred on July 2: “the system autocorrected” Mr. Leger’s last name to the slur. 


Read The Restaurant’s Response

Server No Longer Works at Restaurant

According to Mr. Hoyos’ response, Mr. Leger called the restaurant the day after the incident to explain what had happened the night before. He also asked to speak to the server who had waited on him.

The server was “shocked,” according to Mr. Hoyos. A few days later, when she came in for her next shift, the server “quit because she didn’t feel good” about the call she had received from Mr. Leger.

The server “quit because she didn’t feel good” about the call she had received from Mr. Leger.

According to Mr. Hoyos, the restaurant performed a thorough review of Los Perros’ security footage and the transaction record and found no evidence of discrimination.

But the FCHR determined that there appeared to be enough evidence to justify a lawsuit, and now Mr. Leger and Mr. Hoyos will head to court.

What You Need to Know About the 9/11 Lawsuit Bill

Congress has almost unanimously voted to pass the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), overriding a veto from President Obama. The bill, first introduced by Senator John Cornyn in September 2015, makes it easier for victims of terrorism to file lawsuits against foreign governments.

The Senate voted 97-to-1 in favor of the bill—a rare bipartisan victory. (Only Harry Reid of Nevada voted against.) The House voted 348-to-77 in favor. This marks the first override of a veto during Obama’s presidency.

Prior to the House vote, Representative Ted Poe (R—TX) said, “We as a people should be more concerned about these victims of terror than we are about democratic niceties… Justice has been waiting too long.”

JASTA Allows Families of 9/11 Victims to Sue Saudis

Capitol_hillHistorically, international law has largely protected governments from being sued under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. However, the JASTA bill creates an exception and allows civil claims to be filed against foreign governments for acts of violence and terrorism that occur on U.S. soil.

Specifically, the bill states that the plotting and planning of acts of violence do not have to happen on U.S. soil. It also holds foreign governments accountable for aiding and abetting acts of violence, whether or not they performed the acts themselves.

These clarifications make it easier for 9/11 victims (including families of the deceased and businesses that sustained economic losses) to file lawsuits against the Saudi government for their alleged involvement in the terrorist attacks.

Though an independent commission did not find evidence that the government or a senior official officially supported the 9/11 terrorist attacks, recently declassified information indirectly connects Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan to al Qaeda.

“We want accountability.”

Families of 9/11 victims say they want answers concerning the horrible acts that claimed the lives of their loved ones. “We want accountability,” said Terry Strada, whose husband died in the World Trade Center. “I think the truth would be the first thing, our mission.”

Opponents Fear Foreign Backlash

Justice and answers are not enough though to sway opponents of the new legislation, who argue that it could damage foreign relations.

Opponents fear that the bill will result in foreign governments pulling their assets out of the United States. Saudi Arabia allegedly threatened to liquidate $750 billion in U.S. assets should the bill pass, though some believe this to be an empty threat.

The Obama administration also argues that the act could set legal precedent and result in future lawsuits against the U.S. government and military personnel. They point to the U.S. military’s actions in the Middle East as easy targets for potential lawsuits.

However, supporters argue that because of the bill’s narrow scope, it is unlikely to trigger a significant uptick in litigation. JASTA only implicates countries who support terrorism—acts for which foreign governments should be held accountable.

Senator Chuck Schumer told The New York Times, “If the Saudis did nothing wrong, they should not fear this legislation.”

Saudi Arabia Enlisted Help from Lobbyists, Corporations

Saudi Arabia hired two lobbying firms and spent more than $3 million to try to kill the legislation.

Though Saudi Arabia continues to claim they are innocent of any involvement in the 9/11 attacks, they hired two lobbying firms and spent more than $3 million to try to kill the legislation.

The kingdom also used the Saudi Arabian assets of some Fortune 100 companies to their advantage. Companies like General Electric, Chevron, Boeing, and Dow Chemical all quietly opposed the bill, fearing the security of their assets abroad.

ClassAction.com Attorneys Are Investigating

ClassAction.com attorneys are keeping a close eye on the new 9/11 lawsuit legislation. We currently have former FBI investigators looking into possible connections to Saudi Arabia in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and will keep you up to date on our findings.

Samsung Galaxy Owners Swap One Exploding Phone for Another

Is Samsung taking its exploding battery crisis as seriously as it should?

It’s a fair question after the South Korean electronics maker failed to issue an official CPSC (Consumer Product Safety Commission) recall of the phone despite 70 reports of the Galaxy Note 7 catching fire.

Samsung has also offered the Galaxy S7 Edge as a replacement for the Note, even though an exploding S7 Edge recently caused severe burns to a California construction worker, blew up in a UK teacher’s hand, and caught fire while charging in a Korean man’s room.

Samsung has told its customers that “your safety is our top priority,” but the company’s actions tell a different story.

Hold Samsung Accountable

Note 7 Recall Falls Short of CPSC Guidelines

Samsung, reacting to 35 reports of the Galaxy Note 7 bursting into flames while charging, announced on Friday, September 2 that it had stopped Note 7 sales and would issue replacements for Note 7s already purchased.

The number of explosive Note incidents has since doubled to 70.

The move by Samsung was widely hailed as a “recall,” but as Consumer Reports pointed out, it was not an official recall. An official recall would have involved the Consumer Product Safety Commission and made it illegal to continue selling the Note 7.

CPSC recall protocol mandates that the company take immediate and comprehensive action to notify consumers who own the defective product. This would require Samsung to contact all affected consumers directly, which it has failed to do.

The CPSC expects a manufacturer to issue an official recall if the product in question “contains a defect which could create a substantial product hazard” or “creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death.”

A phone that can unexpectedly burst into flames seems to meet both of these criteria.

The CPSC announced on September 9 that it was working with Samsung to formally announce a Note 7 recall. In the meantime, though, many owners of the fire-prone phones may not be getting the message.

What’s worse: the Note 7 is not the only Samsung model with battery issues.

Galaxy S7 Edge Causes 3rd Degree Burns

As part of its Product Exchange Program, Samsung is offering all Galaxy Note 7 owners a replacement phone free of charge. Incredibly, one of the replacement options is a Galaxy S7 Edge—a device with its own explosive tendencies.

ClassAction.com attorneys recently filed a lawsuit on behalf of Daniel Ramirez, a California man who was working in Ohio when his S7 Edge caught fire in his pocket, causing second and third degree burns to large portions of his lower body. Mr. Ramirez has since undergone multiple skin grafts and will require extensive physical therapy moving forward.

Earlier this week, a 30-year-old UK woman named Sarah Crockett experienced a similar (though less physically scarring) shock when her own S7 Edge became overheated and started smoking in a crowded cafe. The incident was caught on CCTV, refuting Samsung’s claims that Ms. Crockett must have been charging her phone when it caught fire.

Like Mr. Ramirez’s phone—and a Korean man’s whose S7 Edge caught fire while charging—Ms. Crockett’s phone was charred beyond recognition.

In response to Ms. Crockett’s story, a Samsung spokesperson said, “There are no known safety issues with Galaxy S7 devices.”

The company is trying to downplay the battery issue and make it seem unique to the Note, but recent events suggest otherwise.

Hold Samsung Accountable

Could the S7 Edge Have Same Flawed Battery?

While Samsung has sold just two million Galaxy Note 7s, it sold 13.3 million Galaxy S7 Edges in the first half of 2016 alone. This, coupled with the Note-for-Edge exchange, makes it extremely likely that many more instances of flaming Edges will arise in the coming weeks and months.

The Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
Daniel Ramirez’s Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge

The S7 Edge is one of the best reviewed Android phones of all time, and as of August 2016 it was the most popular phone in the world.

It is not only one of the phones for which consumers can swap out their Notes, but the subject of many promotional giveaways (here and here, for example).

Unfortunately, the Note has received all the attention for its battery defects while the Edge (among other models) has flown under the radar. And without an official statement from Samsung concerning the S7 Edge, consumers may lack crucial information about the device.

ClassAction has reached out to Samsung to determine whether its Samsung SDI subsidiary, which makes the battery blamed for Galaxy Note 7 fires, also makes the S7 Edge battery.

Samsung has not responded to our calls and has refused to comment on the Daniel Ramirez lawsuit.

Samsung Has Lost $26 Billion and Counting

In most instances of a battery that catches fire, Samsung has just offered a free replacement phone to the affected party.

A quick Google or Reddit search turns up several phone fires involving the Galaxy S series. In the bulk of these cases, Samsung blamed user error or a faulty/off-brand charger and simply replaced the phone to avoid costly litigation. samsungshares

But now, with the Note 7 and S7 Edge stories gaining traction and these explosive videos going viral, the true scope of this issue is coming into focus—and it is frightening.

As more and more consumers come forward and file lawsuits, Samsung may be forced to acknowledge its design and manufacturing flaws. In time, Samsung may even have to issue official recalls of the Note 7, the S7 Edge, and other models.

Samsung has already lost $26 billion in value as a result of its volatile batteries. But the way things are going, that could be the tip of the iceberg.

Report a Galaxy Phone Fire

ClassAction.com will continue to bring consumers the latest breaking news about the Galaxy Note 7, the Galaxy S7 Edge, and any other Samsung phones that catch fire.

If your phone burned you, caught fire, or exploded, please contact us immediately to explore your legal options and hold Samsung accountable.

Report a Galaxy Fire

Man Sues Samsung After Exploding Galaxy S7 Edge Causes 3rd Degree Burns



Daniel Ramirez was working construction at a bookstore in Ohio when his Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge caught fire in his pocket, causing him second and third degree burns.

The May 30th incident occurred three months prior to Samsung’s recent announcement that it is recalling 2.5 million Galaxy Note 7 phones due to a battery flaw that can result in fires.

ClassAction.com attorneys have filed a product liability lawsuit on behalf of Mr. Ramirez against Samsung–the first lawsuit to be filed over a Galaxy smartphone battery fire.


Mr Ramirez's pants
Mr Ramirez’s pants
3rd degree burns Galaxy Edge
Mr Ramirez’s leg after surgery

Although Samsung has yet to recall the S7 Edge, ClassAction.com is calling on the company to address the safety of S7 Edge batteries in light of the terrible injuries caused by at least one of their phones.

We are also encouraging anyone whose Samsung smartphone caught fire and caused burns to submit a free case review.

View The Samsung Complaint

Battery Fires Prompt Recall, FAA Advisory

Samsung recalled its flagship smartphone, the Galaxy Note 7, on Friday, September 2 in ten countries, including the United States, just two weeks after the product launched.

On Thursday, September 8, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) strongly advised passengers not to use, charge, or even stow Galaxy Note 7 phones on domestic flights. Airlines in Australia and Singapore have gone a step further, forbidding passengers from using or charging the phones inflight.

An internal investigation by Samsung prompted by dozens of consumer complaints about phones catching fire revealed a battery flaw that affects an estimated 1 in 42,000 units.

“Came home from work, put [the Note 7] to charge a little bit before I had class. Went to put it on my waist and it caught fire.”

“There was a tiny problem in the manufacturing process, so it was very difficult to figure out,” Koh Dong-in, president of Samsung’s mobile business, told reporters at a press conference.

Although no injuries have been reported in conjunction with Note 7 battery fires, close calls have been posted on social media.

A 34-year old South Korean teacher shared her story and an image of her burned phone on a popular online forum, according to the Associated Press, saying, “If the exploded phone had burned near my head, I would not have been able to write this post.” Her charred phone allegedly filled the room with chemical smoke.

Korea’s Yonhap News reported that within the first week of the Note 7 launching there were five claims of the devices exploding while charging.

In the United States, Note 7 owner Ariel Gonzalez shared a YouTube video of his scorched and melted phone, warning other users to “Be careful out there.” Gonzalez says he “Came home from work, put [the Note 7] to charge a little bit before I had class. Went to put it on my waist and it caught fire.”

Daniel Ramirez Injury Should Prompt Closer Look at S7 Edge

While Galaxy Note 7 owners have been fortunate to escape serious injury from battery fires, S7 Edge owner Daniel Ramirez was not so lucky.

A native of Tracy, California, Ramirez purchased his Galaxy S7 Edge at a Best Buy store in Modesto, California, on March 11, 2016. He was in Akron, Ohio for a construction project as part of his work for National Property Solutions Group (NPSG).

According to a lawsuit complaint filed by ClassAction.com attorneys, Ramirez placed his S7 Edge in his right front pocket on the morning of May 30, 2016 as he began work. Shortly thereafter he noticed his phone whistling, screeching, and vibrating, as well as smoke coming from his pocket.

As he reached into his pocket to remove the phone Ramirez suffered burns to his right hand. Without warning the S7 Edge exploded and caught fire while still in his pants pocket, causing his boxer shorts and pants to melt to his leg, leaving him with second and third degree burns. He suffered severe and permanent burn injuries to his groin, legs, and lower back that required a significant skin graft surgery and will necessitate extensive physical therapy moving forward.

The Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
The Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge
Mr Ramirez has undergone multiple skin grafts
Mr Ramirez has undergone multiple skin grafts

Only subtle design differences separate the recalled Galaxy Note 7 and Galaxy S7 Edge. The website Android Authority reports that the Galaxy Note 7 has a 3,500 mAh battery, compared to the 3,600 mAh battery used in the S7 Edge.

Samsung says that its SDI subsidiary makes the defective Note 7 battery. ClassAction.com has reached out to Samsung in an attempt to confirm whether the S7 Edge’s larger battery is also made by Samsung SDI.

Lithium ion batteries such as those used in Galaxy phones have been the subject of controversy in recent years. The ubiquitous power supplies–which provide juice to everything from laptops and phones to cars and planes–have been implicated in fire and explosion events involving Dell notebooks, Boeing passenger jets, Tesla cars, hoverboards, and electronic cigarettes.

Free Case Review

ClassAction.com Calls for Damages Amidst Samsung Galaxy Recall

Samsung has said that, as part of the Galaxy Note 7 recall, owners may swap their defective phone for a Samsung Galaxy S7 or Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge. But the injuries to Ramirez suggest that this is akin to swapping one exploding phone for another.

ClassAction.com expects Samsung to address the safety of its S7 Edge batteries in the coming days as news of Mr. Ramirez’s horrific injuries circulates. In particular, we would like to know whether the manufacturing problem blamed for Note 7 battery fires also affects S7 Edge smartphones. If it does, an expanded Galaxy recall should be issued immediately to prevent further consumer harm.

To report a Samsung Galaxy that caught fire, and to learn your legal options, please submit a case review form.

Consumers Can Earn $1,500 Per Telemarketing Call

Few things are as universally scorned as telemarketers. Unwanted calls and messages from debt collectors and other solicitors are so frustrating because most of us have taken the appropriate actions to make the calls stop, with no effect.

Millions of people have added their numbers to the Do Not Call Registry. Often we tell the person on the other end (assuming it’s not a recording or “robocall”) never to call back, only to hear from them again the next week or even day.

Fight Telemarketers

This invasive communication can be maddening—but it can also prove lucrative. Just ask Araceli King.


Over the course of less than a year, Araceli King of Texas received more than 150 robocalls from Time Warner Cable (TWC), aka the most hated company in America. These calls repeatedly reminded Ms. King to pay her bill, though she had never missed a payment.

In March 2014, Ms. King filed a TCPA lawsuit against TWC. Incredibly, between the time she filed the suit and the time the case went to trial, Ms. King received another 74 robocalls from TWC, which a Manhattan judge called “particularly egregious violations of the TCPA.”

In the summer of 2015, that judge ruled in Ms. King’s favor, awarding her a staggering $229,500. This reward was the maximum possible: $1,500 per call.


As per the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), a consumer can receive up to $1,500 for each unlawful call or message. As seen in the case of Araceli King, these guidelines can land hefty payouts to savvy consumers.

File a Lawsuit

To find out if you are receiving unlawful calls or messages and might be eligible for compensation, consult this handy flowchart.

Several TCPA lawsuits have been settled for tens of millions of dollars.


TCPA robocall lawsuits have grown increasingly common in recent years—and increasingly successful. All of the largest such settlements occurred in the past few years:

  • Capital One: $75.5 million (Aug. 2014)
  • AT&T Mobility: $45 million (Oct. 2014)
  • HSBC: $40 million (Sep. 2014)
  • Bank of America: $32 million (Sep. 2014)
  • Midland Credit: $20.5 million (July 2016)
  • Wells Fargo: $16.3 million (July 2016)

July 2016 alone saw three massive TCPA settlements: Midland Credit ($20.5 million), Wells Fargo ($16.3 million; they also settled a TCPA case in December 2014 for $14.5 million), and American Express ($9.25 million).

All of these large companies had allegedly contacted consumers without consumers’ express permission, and they were ultimately held accountable for doing so.


The best way to fight back against unwanted calls and messages is to pursue legal action. Joining a class action lawsuit is free, surprisingly easy, and potentially very rewarding (in more ways than one). The key is to enlist the very best consumer protection firm to fight on your behalf.

Fight Telemarketers

As one of the largest such firms in the country—with 303 lawyers and a support staff of over 1,500—we are one of the few firms with the resources to take on Capital One, Wells Fargo, and other companies of this stature. We are trial lawyers who are not afraid to go up against big corporations, and we have the track record to prove it. To date, we have recovered more than $2 billion for our clients.

Morgan & Morgan has long handled lawsuits on behalf of consumers who received unwanted calls from debt collectors, banks, and other companies. If you receive these calls or messages from solicitors, our attorneys may be able to help you file a claim for compensation. Contact us for a free, no-obligation case review.

Did That Telemarketer Cross The Line?

The TCPA (Telephone Consumer Protection Act) is confusing. Most people know enough to add their phone numbers to the Do Not Call Registry; then they’re miffed when the onslaught of robocalls doesn’t stop. (A robocall is a prerecorded message made by an autodialer.)

It’s hard to know who is allowed to call or text you. That’s why ClassAction.com has created this handy flowchart. Just follow this guide to its conclusion to see if you have a TCPA case. You could be eligible for as much as $500-1,500 per unlawful call or text.


Embed This Chart:



3 Reasons the FDA Was Right to Regulate E-Cigs

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently announced sweeping regulations of the e-cigarette industry, set to become law August 8. The new measures have been met with acclaim in the public health sphere, but criticism in other circles. Here are three reasons why the FDA got these regulations right.

(1) Adolescent vaping is a public health crisis in America.

The most immediate and lasting impact of the new regulation is a ban on the sale of e-cigarettes to minors – and thank God. From 2011 to 2015, vaping increased 900% among high schoolers. From 2013 to 2014 alone, the number of middle and high schoolers who vape tripled.

A recent study in Pediatrics suggests that instead of curbing or replacing nicotine use among adolescents, e-cigarettes increase it. The New York Times explains, “Many teenagers who never would have smoked cigarettes are now ‘vaping’ with flavored e-cigarettes, leading to a new generation using nicotine at rates not seen since the 1990s, a new study suggests.”

“Many teenagers who never would have smoked cigarettes are now ‘vaping’ with flavored e-cigarettes, leading to a new generation using nicotine at rates not seen since the 1990s, a new study suggests.”

The New York Times

For all the talk of e-cigs not being a gateway to traditional cigarettes – and even being a way for people to quit smoking – the fact remains that 70-75% of people who vape also smoke. E-cigarettes may not contain tobacco, but they do contain nicotine: the most addictive component of any cigarette.

And with fun, colorful flavors like Bubble Gum, Cotton Candy, Cupcake, and Goblin Goo (among countless others), e-cig companies target children and adolescents in their marketing with devastating efficiency.

So we have millions of middle and high schoolers getting hooked on nicotine, most of whom also smoke traditional cigarettes (or will). As noted by FDA tobacco czar Mitch Zeller, this stands in stark contrast to Europe, where youth vaping is much less common, making e-cigs less of a problem overall. 

Research suggesting that banning the sale of e-cigs to minors can increase the frequency of traditional smoking among this demographic is misleading at best. (One of the most outspoken critics of the new ban, Jonathan H. Adler, is not exactly objective on the issue: his past research has been funded by e-cig manufacturer NJOY.) The vast majority of health experts would agree that an obvious and drastic reduction in vaping among kids far outweighs a potential 0.9% increase in traditional smoking.

Keeping e-cigarettes out of children’s hands is absolutely vital. Bravo to the FDA for finally taking action on this rapidly growing public health crisis.

Take Action

(2) E-cigarette batteries explode with alarming frequency.

If we have learned anything from the recent rash of gruesome e-cig explosions, it is that their batteries are in dire need of stricter regulation.

E-cigarettes contain lithium-ion batteries – the same kind found in exploding hoverboards. There were at least 25 e-cig explosions between 2009 and 2014, at least a dozen more in 2015, and there have already been several in 2016. According to eCig One, there have been 168 explosions to date. As e-cigarettes’ popularity soars, and as more people come forward, these numbers will only rise.

In February, an e-cigarette exploded in a Kentucky man’s pocket while he waited in line at a Shell gas station. The man was rushed to the hospital with second degree burns.

Just last month, an Orange County man lost his left eye, and a 14-year-old was blinded. These explosions are becoming a weekly occurrence, and according to eCig One, of the 168 reported incidents, 101 resulted in personal injury or death. (Many also result in e-cigarette lawsuits.)

While some have argued that the FDA has overreached, Joe Cavins, the man who lost his eye to an e-cig explosion, says the new regulations don’t go far enough.

“If I would have had that in my hand or up in my mouth when it went off – I mean my God,” Cavins told NBC Los Angeles. “I’m grateful it wasn’t worse.”

(3) Grumbling about the cost of compliance misses the point.

One of the most common refrains in the wake of the FDA’s announcement is that the feds just handed Big Tobacco the vape industry on a silver platter.

Really? Then why is Big Tobacco fighting so hard to derail the regulations?

Yes, every vape product must now be vetted to FDA standards and complete a rigid, multistep application that will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Many smaller vape shops and companies can’t afford to submit applications for all their products, which means they could go out of business, leaving the industry to goliaths like Philip Morris.

But the FDA enacted these regulations to protect the health of consumers, not businesses. (And, for what it’s worth, most e-cigarettes are made in China.) It is not the FDA’s job to ensure that a marketplace remain level and competitive: that would be the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FDA’s job is to make sure the things people eat, drink, smoke, vape, etc. don’t exploit children or kill adults without their knowledge.

Some have referred to e-cigarettes as “lifesaving,” perpetuating the myth that anyone who picks up an e-cigarette puts down a traditional one, for good. But as noted earlier, 70-75% of vapers also smoke. And vape companies have long taken a page out of Big Tobacco’s book and marketed their poison to children, resulting in lifelong nicotine addicts who would have never touched a cigarette otherwise.

Hold Vape Companies Accountable

Nicotine is extremely addictive, and e-cigarettes contain it. Most of them also contain formaldehyde – aka embalming fluid – and diacetyl, which has been shown to cause lung disease. A January 2015 study in The New England Journal of Medicine determined that hidden formaldehyde in e-cigarettes makes the risk of developing cancer five-to-15 times higher that of traditional cigarettes.

Instead of mourning the loss of vape companies or reflexively crying “Overreach!”, we should applaud the FDA for keeping these toxins away from our children, for preventing hundreds of grisly explosions, and for forcing this industry to prove the safety of its products before they hit the market.

Trump, Facebook Sued Over TCPA Violations

He’s riding a wave of primary victories to a likely presidential nomination, but Donald J. Trump ran into some legal turbulence this week.

On Monday, an Illinois man named Joshua Thorne filed a class action suit against Mr. Trump’s campaign, alleging that it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) with unsolicited text messages that read, “Reply YES to subscribe to Donald J. Trump for President. Your subscription will help Make America Great Again!  Msg&data rates may apply.”

The next day, a man named David Roberts filed a similar suit that also alleges that the Trump campaign acquired Mr. Roberts’ phone number from an Event Brite page for a Trump campaign rally. Mr. Roberts says that although he provided his phone number, he did not offer his express written consent to receive political messages.

Free Case Review

Political Messages and Robocalls Not Exempt from TCPA

Contrary to popular misconception, political messages and robocalls are not exempt from the TCPA. The FCC recently issued a reminder that political campaigns are also subject to TCPA provisions, albeit with some exceptions.

Most notably, robocalls, autodials, and prerecorded messages from political campaigns are permitted to landlines, provided the caller identifies him/herself at the start of the call and allows the recipient to opt out from future calls.

But these kinds of calls and messages are prohibited for cellphones and other mobile devices, with three exceptions:

  • Calls made for emergency purposes
  • Calls made with the prior express consent of the recipient
  • Calls made to collect debts “owed to or guaranteed by the United States”

The FCC also emphasized to political robocallers that failure to comply with the TCPA “may subject them to enforcement action, including monetary forfeitures as high as $16,000 per violation.”

Facebook Sued for Badgering Consumers

Facebook—which, like Mr. Trump, continues to best its rivals—is not immune to the TCPA, either. A Washington, D.C. woman named Christine Holt recently filed a class action suit against the social media titan after she received a series of text messages encouraging her to update her Facebook profile and check her friends’ updates.

The only problem: Ms. Holt isn’t on Facebook, and never provided consent to receive any such communication from the company.

Apparently the messages were meant for the previous owner of her phone number, but that is unlikely to prove a strong legal defense. Ms. Holt’s attorney says she is one of thousands of consumers who receive this unwanted solicitation from Facebook.

“Notably, new owners are not provided any explicit means to contact Facebook to make the messages stop,” the complaint states. “In some instances, the messages do not even identify ‘Facebook’ as the sender, and some consumers—having no prior relationship with Facebook—may be completely unaware that Facebook is the sender.”

Fight Back

TCPA Cases—and Settlements—On the Rise

From 2010 to 2015, the number of TCPA-related cases increased almost tenfold, by 940%.

The amounts of the settlements have soared as well. The largest and most famous TCPA settlement was in August 2014, when Capital One (and three collection agencies) paid $75.5 million to end a class action suit that arose after Capital One used an autodialer to call consumers’ cellphones.

A few months later, Wells Fargo settled a similar suit for $14.5 million after it used autodialers and prerecorded messages to try and collect on consumer credit card accounts between 2009 and 2014.

Other major TCPA-related settlements include the following:

  • 2015: AmeriCredit – $6.5-8.5 million (autodialing, prerecorded messages)
  • 2015: Life Time Fitness – $15 million (text messages)
  • March 2015: Walgreen – $11 million (robocalls to cellphones)
  • March 2015: Millward Brown – $11 million (autodials and prerecorded messages to cellphones)

Most recently, Portfolio Recovery Associates (a debt collection agency) agreed to pay $18 million to settle a suit over their autodialing consumers without their consent.

You May Be Eligible for a Lawsuit

If you receive unwanted calls or messages from political campaigns or other solicitors, our attorneys may be able to help you file a claim for compensation. We assist people who are wrongly contacted by a company looking for a different person, as well as those who were contacted after requesting that a company stop calling. For each unwanted call, a consumer may be able to collect between $500 and $1,500.

If you have questions about your rights under the TCPA, contact us today and fill out a free, no-obligation case review.

Jury Awards $72 Million to Family of Baby Powder Victim

Johnson & Johnson describes its 120-year-old baby powder as “a classic.” Indeed, for decades, millions of people have used the powder on their bodies and their children’s.

Which is what makes Jacqueline Fox’s death from ovarian cancer so scary.

Like millions of people across America, Ms. Fox used Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder religiously, and did so for 35 years. Tragedy struck in 2013, when she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer.

Ms. Fox passed away from the disease last fall at age 62—but not before filing a lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson for failing to warn her of the cancer risk associated with using baby powder for feminine hygiene.

She was just one of 1,200 women who have filed suit against Johnson & Johnson for negligence.

Join the Lawsuit

A pathologist determined that Ms. Fox’s ovaries became inflamed and then cancerous from the talc. Internal memos suggested Johnson & Johnson executives knew of the risks; one of their medical consultants even compared talc use to smoking.

In February, a Missouri jury awarded Ms. Fox’s family $72 million.

Johnson & Johnson expressed disappointment in the decision, which it will appeal. The company also posted a fact sheet on its blog, which notes the following:

  • Its talc products have not contained asbestos since the 1970s.
  • Talc has been approved for use all over the world.
  • The U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC) has not identified it as elevating risk for ovarian cancer.
  • Two large-scale studies (the only ones, according to Johnson & Johnson) “found no causal relationship between talc and ovarian cancer.”

But serious questions about talc remain.

Baby Powder Linked to Ovarian Cancer

Talc, the softest mineral known to man, has been the main component of Johnson’s Baby Powder since its release in 1893. Despite its enduring popularity and widespread use, its legacy is marred by health concerns.

Until the 1970s, baby powder contained asbestos, which has been linked to mesothelioma. Johnson & Johnson has since removed the asbestos, but some studies have shown an increased risk of ovarian cancer for women who use talc for feminine hygiene.

A 1999 study in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute noted, “Perineal talc use has been associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer in a number of case-control studies,” and concluded that “perineal talc use may modestly increase the risk of invasive serious ovarian cancer.”

In 2013, the American Association for Cancer Research published findings that talc powder “is associated with a modest 20-30 percent increase in risk of developing epithelial ovarian cancer.”

“How Can You Put a Value on a Life?”

That same year, Deane Berg sued Johnson & Johnson after contracting ovarian cancer she alleges arose from her regular baby powder use. She turned down a $1.3 million settlement and took the case to court, where Johnson & Johnson was found guilty of negligence, fraud, and conspiracy, but not required to pay Ms. Berg any damages. (She says it was never about the money.)

In a heartfelt 2016 editorial published in the wake of the Fox decision, Ms. Berg writes, “There was no ovarian cancer in my family. I didn’t smoke. I wasn’t overweight. The one risk factor that stood out was my use of talcum powder.”

Hold J&J Accountable

Ms. Berg, a physician’s assistant, adds, “I believe that talc can cause ovarian cancer in women,” and concludes, “Some people think $72 million is excessive, but I don’t think so. How can you put a value on a life?”

Frightening Lack of Safety Standards for Cosmetics Industry

Incredibly, the cosmetics industry’s safety standards have not been updated since the passage of the egregiously outdated Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act in 1938.

In April 2015, Senators Dianne Feinstein (D – California) and Susan Collins (R – Maine) co-sponsored the Personal Care Products Safety Act to give the FDA more oversight, including the power to require recalls of dangerous products. The bill received support from the cosmetics industry and consumer advocacy groups like the Environmental Working Group (EWG), but has yet to make it through Congress.

Last month, a national poll by the Mellman Group and American Viewpoint found that 68% of likely voters favor stricter regulation of the cosmetics industry to ensure the safety of its products.

This overwhelming support is unsurprising given the 1,200 Johnson & Johnson lawsuits—and the 17,000 complaints over Guthy-Renker’s WEN hair conditioner, which has allegedly caused thousands of women’s hair to fall out. (Two hundred women have filed suit against Guthy-Renker. That case is still pending.)

If you or a loved one has suffered after using baby powder or any other cosmetic product, please contact us immediately. You may be entitled to compensation due to negligence on the part of the manufacturer.

Exploding E-Cigarettes Raise Serious Safety Concerns

A rash of violent explosions and grisly injuries have raised mounting concerns about the safety of e-cigarettes. One high-profile victim is soccer star Danny Califf, who spent ten years as a defender for the L.A. Galaxy, San Jose Earthquakes, Philadelphia Union, Toronto FC, and various European teams.

Mr. Califf’s attorney, Greg Bentley, says his client has been horribly disfigured by an e-cigarette that blew up in his face earlier this year.

Mr. Califf allegedly suffered a broken cheekbone and was concussed after the cigarette’s lithium-ion battery shot through his cheek.

Fight Back

These types of explosions, and the gruesome injuries that result, are becoming a regular occurrence. On Easter Sunday, an e-cigarette exploded in a Keene, New Hampshire restaurant, burning the hands and face of its owner and hitting “another customer in a nearby booth in the chest, burning part of his shirt and pants,” according to the Sentinel Source. Startled witnesses described the explosion as a “fireball,” or akin to a fireworks display.

In February, an e-cigarette exploded in a Kentucky man’s pocket while he waited in line at a Shell gas station. The man was rushed to the hospital with second degree burns.

Around the same time, a Naples (Florida) woman’s car burst into flames after her e-cigarette exploded. She too was rushed to the nearest hospital with serious burns.

The eruptions above—which result from the same kind of battery found in exploding hoverboards—are just the tip of the iceberg. There were at least 25 e-cig explosions between 2009 and 2014, at least a dozen more in 2015, and there have already been several in 2016. As e-cigarettes’ popularity soars, and as more people come forward, these numbers will only rise.

Toxic Ingredients Could Increase Cancer Risk by 15x

Unfortunately for vapers, explosions are just one of e-cigarettes’ many safety concerns. Though some studies have found them to be significantly healthier than traditional cigarettes, many recent studies have cast serious doubt on the alleged benefits.

From September 2010 to February 2014 the number of vape-related calls to poison control centers skyrocketed, from just one call per month to 215. Over half the calls involved children under the age of five, many of whom had ingested the liquid nicotine found in the devices.

Hold Vape Companies Accountable

A January 2015 study in The New England Journal of Medicine determined that hidden formaldehyde in e-cigarettes makes the risk of developing cancer from them 5 to 15 times higher that of traditional cigarettes. Formaldehyde is most commonly used as a key component in industrial resins, and as an embalming agent.

In December of last year, an Environmental Health Perspectives study found that many e-cigarettes do not disclose the presence of the flavoring chemical diacetyl, which has long been known as a respiratory hazard. Most infamously, diacetyl caused “Popcorn Lung” in microwave popcorn factory workers. (The name “Popcorn Lung” belies the fact that it is a serious, permanent affliction which sometimes requires lung transplants.) The study discovered diacetyl in 39 of the 51 flavors analyzed: nearly 80%.

The damning data grew this past February, when researchers found that e-cigarettes suppressed a whopping 358 immune genes—305 more than traditional cigarettes. These results suggest that e-cigs may render vapers more susceptible to disease, which is doubly troublesome given that they may also cause disease.

FDA Regulation On the Way

Thankfully, lawmakers and regulators have taken notice of this rising public health crisis.

Last month, the Transportation Department banned e-cigarettes on all domestic and international flights that fly into or out of the United States.

A few weeks later, a Vermont bill that would tax e-cigarettes like regular tobacco (at 92%) won preliminary approval from the House. The bill’s sponsor, Rep. George Till, says the bill would deter minors from buying e-cigs. Nationwide, the number of middle and high schoolers who vape tripled between 2013 and 2014.

Most importantly, the FDA has resolved to regulate e-cigarettes in coming months, stating that it would use “powerful regulatory tools, such as age restrictions and rigorous scientific review of new tobacco products and claims to reduce tobacco-related disease and death.”

At present, the e-cigarette industry is not regulated by the FDA or anyone else, which is part of the reason it’s such a dangerous landscape for consumers.

An Explosion of Lawsuits

Naturally, the myriad explosions and other health hazards associated with vaping have generated a flood of e-cigarette lawsuits against manufacturers. Morgan & Morgan is currently exploring suits against e-cigarette companies. Side effects for eligible parties may include the following:

  • Popcorn Lung (coughing, shortness of breath)
  • Asthma
  • Chronic Bronchitis
  • Breathing problems
  • Burns, scarring, or other injuries from e-cig explosion

If you or a loved one has been injured by e-cigarettes, please contact us immediately to complete a free case evaluation. Don’t hesitate; these cases are time-sensitive, and you may be entitled to compensation.