Mercedes Benz of Los Angeles Telemarketing Cell Calls Class Action

Consumers generally do not like telemarketing. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) attempts to protect consumers from unwanted calls or text messages, but some companies appear to ignore the law. The complaint for this class action claims that Lithia Motors, Inc., which does business as Mercedes-Benz of Los Angeles (MBLA), is one such company and sent unlawful telemarketing messages to consumer cell phones.

The TCPA forbids telemarketers from placing telemarketing calls or sending telemarketing text messages to consumer cell phones, using automatic telephone dialing systems (ATDSs), unless they have the consumers’ prior express written consent.

Plaintiff Ajia Munns had not given her consent to MBLA, nor had she given the company her cell phone number, she claims. Nevertheless, the company began sending her telemarketing text messages in May 2020.

For example, on May 12, 2020, she received one such message offering her a link she could tap to schedule an appointment,” another she could tap “for more details on your recall(s)[,]” an address for the company, and a telephone number. The message said, “Hi Ajia, this is your service team at Mercedes Benz of Los Angeles.” It added, “Your 2013 Mercedes-Benz C-Class may be part of a Factory Recall Campaign. There is no charge to you for having this recall service performed.”

It also contained an instruction to “type STOP to STOP”. Munns did so, typing the word “Stop”. Thereafter, she received a reply message from the company: “‘You are currently opted out of receiving texts. Please send REJOIN or OPTIN to opt back in.’ Text STOP to opt out.”

Ten days later, on May 22, she received a message very similar to the first, inviting her to “tap” for more information, with a link, an address, and a telephone number. It said, “Your 2013 Mercedes-Benz C-Class still still shows to have an outstanding safety recall. Get your repairs completed at Mercedes Benz of Los Angeles, at no cost to you.”

Again, Munn replied, “STOP.” Again, MBLA sent her a reply saying she was opted out. However, the company continued to send her telemarketing text messages.

Two classes have been defined for this action:

The ATDS Class for this action is all persons in the US who received telemarketing text messages from MBLA on their cell phones, which were made through the use of an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice, where the persons had not given their prior express consent to receive such text messages, between September 14, 2016 and September 14, 2020.

The ATDS Revocation Class is all persons in the US who received telemarketing messages from MBLA on their cell phones, which were made through the use of an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice, where the persons had revoked any prior express consent to receive such text messages, between September 14, 2016 and September 14, 2020.

Coffee Mate Natural Bliss “Vanilla” Almond Milk Flavoring New York Class Action

The Coffee Mate Natural Bliss brand, from Nestle Holdings, Inc., includes a “Vanilla” Almond Milk Creamer which purports to be “Natural.” The complaint for this class action charges that the product’s label is misleading “because the Product contains artificial, non-vanilla flavors not disclosed to consumers and less vanilla than consumers expect.”

The class for this action is all persons who live in New York and who bought the product during the applicable statutes of limitations.

Page two of the complaint shows an image of the product. The front of the bottle includes the words “Vanilla,” “Natural Flavor,” and “All Natural,” along with an image of a vanilla blossom and three vanilla bean pods.

The complaint claims that consumers prefer “foods which get their taste from a characterizing food ingredient, i.e., strawberries in a strawberry shortcake, vanilla in a vanilla pudding.”.

Natural flavors cost more, and this is especially true of vanilla, which is one of the most expensive flavorings in the world and which the complaint says “has reached record high prices in recent years.”

Vanilla is the only flavor that has its own standards of identity in the Code of Federal Regulations, which were set forth in the 1960s. The regulations are supplemented by a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Advisory Opinion and FDA-issued correspondence to govern the labeling of “vanilla” flavorings.

The complaint points to an article from the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association (FEMA) entitled, “Labeling Vanilla Flavorings and Vanilla-Flavored Foods in the US.” The article’s intention is to stop practices which “deprive the consumer of value the product is represented to have, and for which the consumer pays,” such as “the widespread and exceedingly serious adulteration of vanilla extracts that are now labeled ‘pure.’”

With other flavors, such as strawberry, where makers use some flavor from the characterizing ingredient and some from other natural sources, the makers are allowed to state the flavor as, for example, “Strawberry with Other Natural Flavors” (or Strawberry WONF”).

However, this is not permitted with vanilla. The complaint alleges, “The purpose of not providing for the designation of ‘Vanilla WONF’ was to prevent consumers from being misled by a small amount of vanilla, boosted by artificial vanilla flavors.” In vanilla products, then, anything other than real vanilla, the characterizing flavor, must be considered an artificial ingredient, even if it comes from originally natural sources.

The complaint also reproduces the product’s ingredient panel. In its list of ingredients, no vanilla is shown; the only ingredient that is likely to flavor the almond milk seems to be as “Natural Flavors.”

The complaint contends, “In a product with a characterizing flavor of vanilla, the designation of an ingredient as ‘natural flavor’ means it is a combination of vanilla and non-vanilla flavor, known as ‘Vanilla With Other Natural Flavors’ (‘WONF’).” Even if the flavor added is vanillin, the label must declare that the product “contains vanillin, an artificial flavor” (or flavoring).

Teas’ Tea “Slightly Sweet” Pomegranate Blueberry Green Tea New York Class Action

Ito-En (North America), Inc. makes a Teas’ Tea line of teas that include a Slightly Sweet—Pomegranate Blueberry Green Tea. The complaint for this class action takes issue with the “Slightly Sweet” claim, alleging that it is not permitted under federal regulations for food and beverages because this type of “low sugar” claim is not permitted.

The class for this class action is all those who live in New York who bought the product during the applicable statutes of limitations.

The second page of the complaint shows an image of a bottle of the Slightly Sweet Pomegranate Blueberry Green Tea product. Under the Teas’ Tea Organic label are the words “Slightly Sweet” and, below that, the tea flavor. Near the bottom of the label are images of blueberries and a clump of pomegranate arils in a bit of pomegranate peel.

The complaint also quotes one of the authors of a study as saying that low- or no-nutrient claims can mean different things for different foods. “This could potentially lead to confusion if consumers focus on seeking out products with specific nutrient claims or use a claim to justify the purchase of less-healthy foods.”

In the case of this product, the complaint adds, “The representation as ‘slightly sweet’ is understood by consumers to indicate the Product is ‘low sugar’ and contains less sugar than it does.”

In fact, the product’s nutrition label shows that it contains 20 grams of sugar. The complaint says the product is “[f]ar from being ‘slightly sweet’ and low in sugar…” It points out that this is 40% of the Daily Value for sugar.

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) permits claims for no sugar and relative amounts of sugar (“lower sugar”), but it does not permit the claim of “low sugar.” The complaint alleges, “To the extent that [Ito-En] claims ‘slightly sweet’ is a low sugar claim, that too is not allowed.” Also, it says, “Because “low sugar claims have never been authorized, they are prohibited.”

The complaint quotes a letter from the consumer advocacy group Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) to the FDA on the Teas’ Tea product’s “Slightly Sweet” claim: “The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the word ‘slight’ to mean ‘small … in amount…’ These words [slightly] are all synonymous with the word ‘low,’[] which is defined as ‘small in number or amount.’ Therefore the products bearing claims of … ‘slightly sweet’ [bears] [an] unauthorized implied ‘low sugar’ claim and are misbranded…”

Referring again to the CPSI letter, the complaint alleges that the product is “not only not ‘low’ in added sugars, but [is] actually ‘high’ in added sugars according to FDA’s standard definition for ‘high in’ claims[,]” which is “at least 20 percent of the DV…”

The complaint alleges violation of state consumer protection laws, negligent misrepresentation, and breaches of warranties, among other things.

Generali Travel Insurance Denies Benefits for Covid-19 Cancellations Class Action

A variety of class actions have been filed by businesses whose have been denied payouts under their business insurance policies for losses due to Covid-19 closures. This case concerns a denial by a travel insurance company that is refusing to cover trips cancelled due to the coronavirus. It brings suit against Generali US Branch, Generali Global Assistance, Inc., and Customized Services Administrators, Inc., which does business as CSA Travel Protection.

The Nationwide Class for this action is all persons in the US who bought Generali travel insurance plans, have incurred out-of-pocket trip cancellation expenses, and were prevented from taking or completing a trip as a result of a covered event during the Covid-19 pandemic. As an alternative, the complaint proposes a California state class.

On March 11, 2020 plaintiff Jo Ellen Young bought insurance for a trip she and her husband meant to take to Ashland, Oregon between June 10 and June 15, 2020. The couple, in their eighties, meant to go to the Oregon Shakespeare festival.

On that same day, the World Health Organization declared Covid-19 to be a global pandemic. The following day, Kate Brown, the Governor of Oregon, prohibited gatherings of more than 250 persons. She eventually issued a stay-at-home order and the Oregon Shakespeare Festival then canceled all performances for the rest of the season.

On May 7, the date of the Oregon stay-at-home order and the festival cancellation, Young canceled the trip she had booked and filed an insurance claim.

However, the companies denied the claim. The complaint quotes the denial letter as saying that “the Coronavirus outbreak is considered a foreseeable event under any plans purchased on or after January 29, 2020. Therefore, you could be covered if you are diagnosed with Coronavirus, but foreseeable events such as becoming quarantined due to the Coronavirus will not be covered.”

The policy states that benefits will be paid “if you are prevented from taking your Trip due to one of the following unforeseeable Covered Events that occur before departure on your Trip…” Listed among the covered events is “[y]our Accommodations at your destination made inaccessible” and “[b]eing hijacked or Quarantined[,]” with certain qualifications.

Instead of paying benefits, however, the companies offered Young vouchers equal to the amount of the premiums. The complaint says, “Upon information and belief, [the companies] have essentially implemented a uniform approach categorically issuing denials to all insureds who submit Claims for virtually any loss arising during the Covid-19 outbreak and pandemic.”

Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London Refuse to Cover Covid-19 Losses Class Action

This is another class action bringing suit against an insurer that has rejected claims for business losses because of mandated closures for Covid-19. This class action brings suits against Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, Trading as Syndicates WRB 1957 and KLN 0510 who are the insurers of the business.

The class for this action is all policyholders in the US who bought commercial property coverage, including business or interruption income (and extra expense) coverage from the defendant in this case and who have been denied coverage for lost business income after being ordered by a governmental entity to shut down or limit their business operations due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Tripwire Operations Group, LLC is a Pennsylvania company that offers products and training to the US military, first responders, and law enforcement. Tripwire held an all-risk insurance policy which includes “direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property at the premises described in the Declarations caused by or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss.” It includes business income, extra expense, and civil authority coverage.

On March 13, 2020, the Deputy of Defense issued a Stop Movement Order which restricted travel for Department of Defense personnel, including many of Tripwire’s clients. Tripwire has been closed entirely since March 19, 2020, when the Governor of Pennsylvania issued an order closing all nonessential businesses. Also, on March 23, a Stay at Home Order was issued that limited people’s ability to leave their residences.

The complaint asserts, “Physical loss of, or damage to, property may be reasonably interpreted to occur when a covered cause of loss threatens or renders property unusable or unsuitable for its intended purpose or unsafe for ordinary human occupancy and/or continued use.”

Covid-19 is highly contagious. The aerosols remain in the air for as long as three hours and it can live on surfaces for up to fourteen days. The complaint refers to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, saying that Covid-19 “is widely accepted as a cause of physical loss and damage.”

The complaint alleges, “The closure of all ‘non-life-sustaining businesses’ evidences an awareness on the part of both state and local governments that Covid-19 causes loss of or damage to property. This is particularly true in places where in-person business is conducted, as the contract and interaction necessarily incident to such businesses causes a heightened risk of property becoming contaminated.”

Certain places, such as New York City and New Orleans, have already officially acknowledged that Covid-19 causes property loss or damage. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded that “any location … where two or more people can congregate is within the disaster area.”

Tripwire has experienced significant loss of business income “due to the constraints placed on” its business, and on March 18, 2020, it provided notice to its insurer that it would be making a claim. In a letter dated July 27, 2020, the insurer denied Tripwire’s claim, declaring that there was no “physical loss of or damage to property.”

Kirkland Optifiber “Natural” Prebiotic Fiber Supplement Class Action

In 2019, the global market for supplements was estimated at more than $80 billion. One product in this market was Costco Wholesale Corporation’s Kirkland Optifiber Natural Prebiotic Fiber Supplement. But is it natural? The complaint for this class action claims that it is not, because it contains wheat dextrin, a synthetic ingredient.

The class for this action is all consumers who bought the product anywhere in the US during the applicable statute of limitations. A New York Subclass has also been defined, for those who bought the product in New York.

Consumers these days, by a wide proportion, prefer natural products, and they are willing to pay more for them than for products with artificial ingredients. Unfortunately, the complaint says, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not have the resources to police the very large market for supplements.

The complaint for this class action alleges that Costco makes and sells the Optifiber product “using a marketing and advertising campaign centered around claims that appeal to health-conscious consumers, i.e., that its Product is ‘Natural.’”

A photograph of the product is reproduced in the complaint. Directly below the “Optifiber” name are the words “A Natural Prebiotic Fiber Supplement.” But the complaint says this designation is false because the product contains wheat dextrin. In fact, another photograph shows the back of the product, with the ingredient “list,” which shows that the sole ingredient is wheat dextrin.

The complaint claims, “On May 14, 2020, the National Advertising Division (NAD), which is charged with monitoring and evaluating truth and accuracy in national advertising, conducted an investigation and determined that wheat dextrin, which is created from wheat starch using a multi-stage chemical process involving hydrochloric acid and enzymes, is not a natural ingredient…”

NAD reached its conclusion, the complaint says, because of “the complex chemical process used to produce the wheat dextrin” with NAD noting that the process “transforms the source ingredient—wheat starch—which is digestible and has 0% dietary fiber, into a new ingredient—wheat dextrin—which is non-digestible and has 85% dietary fiber.” Taking the process into consideration, NAD decided that “ingredients that are derived from nature and undergo significant chemical alterations are often not ‘natural’ in the way that consumers expect them to be.”

Also, the complaint says, the “FDA’s Review of the Scientific Evidence on the Physiological Effects of Certain Non-Digestible Carbohydrates expressly calls wheat dextrin a ‘synthetic’ non-digestible carbohydrate.”

This designation of wheat dextrin is also supported by the Draft Guidance Decision Tree for Classification of Materials as Synthetic or Nonsynthetic (Natural), from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Congress has defined synthetic as “a substance that is formulated or manufactured by a chemical process or by a process that chemically changes a substance extracted from naturally occurring plants, animals, or mineral sources…”

Ruffles Baked Cheddar & Sour Cream Flavored Potato Chips New York Class Action

One variety of Ruffles Baked chips is Cheddar & Sour Cream. But what provides the sour cream flavor? The complaint for this class action alleges that this Frito-Lay, Inc. product is not flavored with natural sour cream and that the front label should disclose that it’s “artificially flavored.”

The class for this action is all those who live in New York and bought the product during the applicable statutes of limitations.

Consumers these days prefer natural to artificial flavorings, by a large proportion. The complaint refers to three studies that 62%, 71%, and 76% of consumers, respectively, try to avoid artificial flavors. They are willing to pay more for food that is naturally flavored, and companies are aware of this.

The complaint reproduces a photo of a bag of the Ruffles Baked chips at issue in this case. It shows an image of the chips along with a wedge of cheese and a small bowl of sour cream. The variety is indicated by the words “cheddar and sour cream,” underneath which, in smaller type, is the word “flavored.”

How is the sour cream flavor achieved? The complaint alleges that it comes from the careful souring of pasteurized cream by lactic acid, producing a substance called diacetyl, which is also “the main flavor compound in butter.” It quotes a book on The Sensory Evaluation of Dairy Products as saying that the flavor relies on a balance between “proper culture selection, close control of the lactic acid development, along with the proper composition of the cream.”

According to the Encyclopedia of Food Microbiology’s chapter on Fermented Milks, the complaint says, diacetyl is “the major flavor compound” in sour cream.

The complaint alleges, “To produce sour cream with high levels of diacetyl requires adequate citrate in the cream prior to fermentation, which is based on the diet of the cows.” According to the complaint, “cows which can graze freely on pasture—instead of feedlot—will provide the base for a sour cream which is naturally higher in diacetyl.” But this is expensive, because “pasture raised cows … require more space per cow and have longer life spans tha[n] cows who lack this benefit.”

Therefore, the complaint contends, “To produce sour cream with its essential diacetyl flavor from cows who are not provided a pasture diet requires the addition of artificial diacetyl flavor.” According to the complaint, then, “Consumers are misled by the Product’s representation as ‘Flavored’ because this gives them the impression that actual sour cream is the source of the flavor.”

In fact, the product’s ingredient list, reproduced in the complaint, shows “Artificial Flavors.” The complaint alleges that the front of the bag should disclose that the product is artificially flavored, such as by saying “Cheddar and ‘Artificial Sour Cream Flavored’” or the like.

Blackbaud Ransomware Attack and Data Breach Florida Class Action

In May 2020, a company called Blackbaud, Inc. suffered a ransomware attack and data breach of its systems. This class action has been filed on behalf of people whose information was exposed. Blackbaud managed the servers of schools, healthcare companies, nonprofits, and other organizations. The complaint claims that Blackbaud “secured the Private Information in a reckless manner…” The counts include negligence and breach of express contract, among other things.

The class for this action is all persons in Florida whose private information was compromised in the February through May of 2020 data breach described at
www.blackbaud.com/securityincident.

The individuals who do business with Blackbaud’s clients are required to provide sensitive personal information, which is then stored and secured by Blackbaud. The information includes names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, credit card and bank account numbers, healthcare and insurance information, photo identification, and other data.

Blackbaud admitted in its 2019 annual report that a data breach would expose it to substantial difficulties and that the security of data as “fundamental” to its business.

Nevertheless, in May 2020, it suffered a ransomware attack that its report later said tried to “disrupt business by locking companies out of their own data and servers.” The report said that after Blackbaud discovered the attack, “our Cyber Security team … successfully prevented the cybercriminal from blocking our system access and fully encrypting files; and ultimately expelled them from our system.”

The report claims that the cybercriminal was still able to “remove[] a copy of a subset of data” but “did not access credit card information, bank account information, or social security numbers.” It said that Blackbaud “paid the cybercriminal’s demand with confirmation that the copy they removed had been destroyed.” It claims that, “we have no reason to believe that any data went beyond the cybercriminal, was or will be misused; or will be disseminated or otherwise made available publicly…”

The complaint alleges that the attack actually began much earlier, in February 2020, and went on for around three months.

According to the complaint, Blackbaud did not have “a sufficient process or policies in place to prevent such cyberattack, which is evident by its own statements [shortly after the attack] that it has ‘already implemented changes to prevent this specific issue from happening again.’”

The complaint claims that Blackbaud can’t “rely on the word of data thieves or ‘certificate of destruction’ issued by those same thieves” that they destroyed the information they took or that they did not access Social Security numbers or bank account or credit card numbers. If Blackbaud was certain of that, the complaint says, “it would not have advised its clients to advise affected individuals to monitor accounts for suspicious activity.”

The complaint alleges that Blackbaud has not offered its clients or the affected individuals any remedy, such as credit monitoring. In fact, the company did not notify the clients until July or August of the attack.

PICS “Vanilla” Soymilk Misleading Labels New York, Massachusetts Class Action

The Golub Corporation, which operates the Price Chopper supermarkets, sells a “vanilla” soymilk under its PICS brand. However, the complaint for this class action alleges that the product is mislabeled, because the unqualified “vanilla” representation leads consumers to think the product contains more real vanilla than it does.

The class for this action is all purchasers of the product who live in Massachusetts and New York during the applicable statutes of limitations.

Consumers these days avoiding artificial flavors. The complaint cites three studies that find that 62%, 71%, and 76% of consumers, respectively, avoid products with artificial flavoring.

Products with natural flavoring tend to cost more, but consumers are willing to pay more for them. According to the complaint, the demand for real vanilla has been increasing. It says, “Flavoring ingredients, especially for products labeled as vanilla, are typically the most expensive ingredient in a food, and vanilla has reached record high prices in recent years.” For that reason, food manufacturers search for cheaper ways of reproducing a “vanilla” flavor.

Standards for vanilla flavoring were established in the 1960s, with the Food and Drug Administration saying that “the purposes of the standards are to assure that the consumer gets what is expected when purchasing vanilla products.”

A paper by John B. Hallagan and Joanna Drake, of the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association (FEMA) notes, “The U.S. federal standard of identity for vanilla flavorings does not provide for the designation of any vanilla flavorimgs as ‘vanilla with other natural flavors’ or ‘vanilla WONF.’” The purpose of this omission, the complaint says, “was to prevent consumers from being misled by a small amount of vanilla boosted by artificial flavors, including vanillin.”

The complaint reproduces the PICS product’s ingredient panel, which lists “Vanilla Extract” and then “Natural Flavors.”

According to the complaint, “Hallagan and Drake state that where a product’s front label representation is ‘Vanilla’ without qualification, it ‘lead[s] consumers to believe that it is flavored with vanilla extract, or another vanilla flavoring derived solely from vanilla beans…’” This would not be the case if the product contains some other “natural flavors” in addition to vanilla.

When paired with vanilla, the complaint alleges, even if the “natural flavors” are actually from natural sources, the front label cannot designate the product’s flavoring as simply “Vanilla.” Under the vanilla standards of identity, when paired with vanilla, the additional flavors must be revealed as artificial flavors.

The complaint says, “The front label is misleading because it does not disclose the presence of the non-vanilla flavors on the front label…” Also, “[c]onsumers who read the ingredient list will expect the ‘Natural Flavors’ to refer to natural vanilla flavors instead of artificial vanilla flavors and are misled to believe that the Product contains more vanilla than it does.”

Whirlpool Dishwashers Improperly-Oriented Seal and Leakage Pennsylvania Class Action

Whirlpool makes dishwashers under a number of brands: Whirlpool, KitchenAid, JennAir, Maytag, and Kenmore. The complaint for this class action alleges that certain Whirlpool dishwashers are made with an improperly-installed seal that can deteriorate and leak and cause damage to cabinetry, flooring, and other property.

The class for this action is all persons in the state of Pennsylvania who own or owned a Whirlpool-manufactured dishwasher with an inverted diverter shaft seal.

The Whirlpool washers in question include more than 900 models, including the following:
Whirlpool Gold® and Whirlpool Models beginning with BLB14DR, IUD750, IUD850, WDF5, WDF7, WDL785, WDT7, WDT9, WDTA5, and WDTA7
JennAir Models beginning with JDB8, JDB9, and JDTSS2; Kenmore Models beginning with 662.13, 665.12, 665.13, 665.14, and 665.15
KitchenAid Models beginning with KDFE1, KDFE2, KDFE3, KDFE4, KDTE1, KDTE2, KDTE3, KDTE4, KDTE5, KDTE7, KDHE4, KDHE7, KDTM3, KUDE2, KUDE4, KUDE5, KUDE6, KUDE7, KUDL, KDPE2, and KDPE3
Maytag Models beginning with JDB8

The dishwashers are marketed as high-quality products, with the Whirlpool website quoted in the complaint as saying, “No One Has Fewer Repairs 18 Years in a Row.”

When plaintiff Amy Larchuk bought her KitchenAid dishwasher in September 2016, she looked for one “that would be long lasting and not required many repairs[,]” the complaint says. She bought one of the machines at issue in this case and paid more than $500 for it. She also paid more than $150 for an extended warranty that is to expire on September 20, 2022.

Unfortunately, the complaint alleges, a pump motor diverter shaft seal in the machines at issue is “oriented incorrectly, accelerating degradation of the seal and creating a buildup of debris that prevents the shaft seal spring from properly sealing the diverter shaft and sump.”

Because the seal cannot seal off water between the diverter shaft and pump, the complaint says, the machines “experience significant leakage through the Diverter Shaft Seal, flowing out of the dishwasher” and causing damage to the surroundings.

According to the complaint, sometime around April 2020, Larchuk noticed a small amount of water leaking from the dishwasher. The amount of leakage increased over the months, the complaint alleges, “and water began running to the basement ceiling below the Dishwasher, damaging the ceiling joists.”

When she called Whirlpool, the representative told her that she could not replace the dishwasher under her warranty but could only have a repair. However, the complaint alleges that the repair parts would also have the defect, it would not permanently solve the problem.

The complaint alleges that “Whirlpool has known for at least eight years that the Dishwashers contain one or more design and/or manufacturing defects” including the “defectively designed and manufactured sump assembly with the inversely oriented Diverter Shaft Seal[.]”

The counts include breaches of warranties and breach of contract, among other things.