August 14, 2009
Controversial Hydroxycut Suits Have Already Been Filed
On May 1, 2009, there was a recall of 14 Hydroxycut diet-aid products stemming from a number of reports that folks using the products were developing major liver issues and other health concerns. Less than 7 days later, on May four, the first Hydroxycut class action court action was filed against the company that manufactures the products, Iovate Medical Sciences. The Hydroxycut Settlements alleges company failure in informing the public about potential perils of the products. Naturally, it’s too soon to grasp the suit is going to turn out, but if the company had information which it did not reveal to customers, it should definitely be held accountable.
A class action court action is filed by a group of folks, all of whom have similar claims against a certain company. Filing a class action is just as effective, and a lot less pricey, than filing an individual suit. As a rule, filing a class action lawsuit won’t cost anything unless there’s a settlement. At that point, the attorney who handled the suit will take his costs from the compensation that was given and then assign the leftover funds to the accusers 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 reasons that class action legal actions became so popular.
The first class action suit against Iovate was filed in Canada where the company is located and represents all Canadian voters who sustained health problems due to Hydroxycut products. The FDA recall occurred in the United States where twenty-three 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 seventeen reports concerning people who sustained breathing, neurological, cardiovascular, and gut problems as a consequence of Canadians using the products.
The Hydroxycut Liver Damage Suits alleges the company sold the products without correctly informing the general public of the health hazards that they could exposing consumers to. The complaint states that the company did not publish the data on the product labels stating that users could run the risk of liver and kidney damage as well as gut, cardio, respiratory, and neurological issues. The suit goes on to claim this was a blatant omission on the part of the company which deliberately misled buyers concerning the security of the products.