On May 1, 2009, there was a recall of 14 Hydroxycut diet-aid products stemming from a number of reports that people using the products were developing serious liver problems and other health worries. Less than 7 days later, on May 4, the 1st Hydroxycut class action court action was filed against the company that manufactures the products, Iovate Medical Sciences. The Hydroxycut Case alleges company negligence in informing the public about potential dangers of the products. Naturally, it’s too shortly to know how the suit is going to turn out, but if the company had information which it did not reveal to consumers, it should definitely be held accountable.
A class action legal action is filed by a bunch of folk, all of whom have similar claims against a certain company. Filing a class action is just as effective, and a lot less expensive, than filing an individual suit. As a rule, filing a class action legal action will not cost anything unless there’s a settlement. At that point, the lawyer who handled the suit will take his costs from the compensation that was given and then share the leftover funds to the plaintiffs in the case. Since this is the case, you will be able to file a Hydroxycut class action suit without paying a penny out of your own pocket, which is an example of the explanations that class action lawsuits have become so popular.
The first class action lawsuit against Iovate was filed in Canada where the company is found and represents all Canadian voters who sustained health problems due to Hydroxycut products. The FDA recall occurred in the United States where 23 cases of liver disorders and other health problems had been reported. Health Canada did not receive any reports of liver damage due to the diet products, but they did receive 17 reports concerning folks who sustained breathing, neurological, cardio, and gastrointestinal problems as a consequence of Canadians using the products.
The Hydroxycut class action suit alleges the company sold the company sold the products without properly informing the health hazards that they could exposing patrons to. The complaint states the company did not publish the information on the product labels stating that users could run the risk of liver and kidney damage as well as stomach, cardio, respiration, and neurological issues. The suit goes on to claim this was a blatant omission on the part of the company which purposely misled consumers concerning the protection of the products.
