Consumer Protection

Taus, Cebulash & Landau, LLP advises consumers whether and how to pursue legal action under consumer-protection statutes to stop the unfair and deceptive practices of large corporations and obtain compensation for those practices. We have successfully prosecuted consumer class-action lawsuits against many of the largest U.S. banks, financial service companies, and food-services corporations. Working with co-counsel, we have achieved settlements in excess of $100 million for consumers. Examples of current and recently resolved cases include:

  • Shaaya v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC
    (D.N.J.)

    We represent a proposed class of plaintiffs who were sold 2016–2020 Range Rovers or other Jaguar Land Rover vehicles that are equipped with an allegedly defective diesel particulate filter system, which is prone to clogging and can cause the car to unexpectedly stop operating.

  • Hogan v. Amazon.com (W.D. Wash.)

    As court-appointed executive committee members, we represent a proposed class of plaintiffs seeking recovery from Amazon for allegedly violating Illinois’s Biometric Information Privacy Act by using facial-recognition technology to improperly collect and utilize putative class members’ biometric data.

  • Gisairo v. Lenovo (D. Minn.)

    As class counsel, we have reached an agreement in principle with Lenovo to resolve a class action alleging that Lenovo sold defective Flex 5 and Yoga 730 computers whose computer displays flickered, froze, or blacked out. We expect to finalize a settlement agreement and submit it to the Court for approval in the near future.

  • Guthart v. Nassau County (NYS Supreme Court) and
    McGrath v. Suffolk County (NYS Supreme Court)

    We represent a proposed class of plaintiffs alleging that Nassau and Suffolk Counties imposed unconstitutional administrative fees in connection with red-light camera violations, and we successfully obtained an order declaring the Suffolk County fee void (that order is currently on appeal).

  • Hasemann v. Gerber (E.D.N.Y.) and Manemeit v. Gerber (E.D.N.Y.)

    We successfully obtained class certification and the court appointed us Co-Lead Counsel to represent a class of New York and Florida consumers who purchased Good Start Gentle infant formula. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant deceptively marketed GSG as the first and only formula that reduces the risk of infants developing allergies.

  • Casey v. Citibank, N.A. (N.D.N.Y.)

    As court-appointed Class Counsel we were instrumental in negotiating a nationwide settlement that provided $110 million in benefits to a class of homeowners who alleged tht Citibank force-placed class members with wind, flood, and hazard insurance at inflated rates and without disclosing that it had a financial interest in placing the insurance.

  • Arnett v. Bank of America (D. Or.)

    As court-appointed Class Counsel we reached a $31 million nationwide settlement for a class of homeowners alleging that Bank of America force-placed them with flood insurance at an inflated rate and without disclosing that it had a financial interest in placing the insurance.

  • Esslinger v. HSBC Bank (E.D.Pa.)

    As co-lead counsel we successfully negotiated a $23.5 million nationwide settlement for credit-card holders in a class action alleging that HSBC misrepresented and omitted material facts regarding the terms and conditions of its credit-protection product and charged class members for the product without their consent.

  • In re Bank of America Credit Protection Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation (N.D.Cal.)

    As a member of the executive committee, we obtained a $20 million nationwide settlement for credit-card holders in a consumer class action alleging that Bank of America misrepresented and omitted material facts regarding the terms and conditions of its credit-protection product and charged class members for the product without their consent.

  • Westrope v. Ringler (D.Or.) and Moore v. EPS Settlements Group (S.D. Fl.)

    We represented and successfully resolved the claims of large structured-settlement annuitants who suffered cuts to their annuity payments as a result of their structured- settlement brokers’ alleged negligence.

Scroll to Top