covid-19 Archives - Tauler Smith LLP Los Angeles Trial Attorneys

Posts

Tauler Smith Investigating Claims Against WeWork

June 22, 2022/in Arbitration /by taulersmith

Law firm Tauler Smith LLP is investigating claims against WeWork and JAMS over misconduct in hundreds of arbitrations initiated by WeWork against small businesses. The unprecedented number of arbitrations (enforcing identical “membership agreements” for “services” despite business closures stemming from COVID-19) generates massive revenue and incentives for JAMS, creating a conflict of interest that is not disclosed to small businesses being pursued by WeWork through JAMS. Neither JAMS nor WeWork discloses to any of these small businesses the nature of the parties’ pecuniary relationship, such as the amount WeWork pays to JAMS every year. Beyond that, neither JAMS nor WeWork discloses prior case outcomes to the small businesses pursued by WeWork, even though WeWork uses identical contracts and identical legal theories in these cases.

Only WeWork and JAMS know case outcomes, but small business opponents defending claims brought by WeWork do not. This places WeWork at a massive advantage since only they have access to certain information, including how JAMS has interpreted the identical contract on multiple occasions. The result is a process that is unfair to small business defendants. It is a process that benefits only WeWork and JAMS by perpetuating WeWork’s ability to pursue its members and by giving JAMS the continued ability to collect fees from hundreds of disputes.

To learn more about the possible legal claims against WeWork and JAMS, keep reading this blog.

WeWork Sued Small Business Owners for Rent During COVID Pandemic

WeWork is a company that provides coworking spaces to businesses. WeWork uses an identical “Membership Agreement,” but not as a lease of space; rather, it is for the provision of services. This allows WeWork to argue that legal protections ordinarily afforded to tenants do not apply to WeWork members. WeWork then argues that landlord-tenant law is applicable to obtain favorable rulings from JAMS.

The attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP are also investigating whether WeWork is reporting the revenue in Membership Agreements accurately to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). WeWork’s accounting procedures have come under public scrutiny over the last several years. The COVID-19 pandemic and the arbitrations WeWork initiated with JAMS potentially provide a means for WeWork to double-book revenue if they apply deceptive accounting methods.

Tauler Smith LLP is also investigating whether WeWork uses private arbitration to protect itself from revealing misconduct that is of concern to the public. Since WeWork structures all of its contracts to be private, only WeWork and JAMS know how and why JAMS has been ruling favorably for WeWork. Moreover, since the cases go through arbitration instead of going through the courts, the small businesses do not know the prior results. This puts the small businesses at an even greater disadvantage in the proceedings. Arbitration is often used for business conflicts that involve contract disputes. WeWork requires anyone who signs a lease with the company to agree in advance to use arbitration for any legal disputes. Even being a part of an arbitration can cost a small businesses significant money. WeWork arbitrations are administered by JAMS, an arbitration company that also provides mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) services.

Tauler Smith LLP Investigates Relationship Between WeWork and Arbitration Company JAMS

Tauler Smith LLP is now investigating a possible legal claim against JAMS stemming from the arbitration company’s lucrative and ongoing relationship with WeWork. It has been reported that WeWork may be the largest tenant/landlord in all of New York City, and it is believed that WeWork has pursued hundreds (if not thousands) of claims against its members using only one arbitration company: JAMS. This would mean that JAMS has received millions of dollars from WeWork. JAMS is therefore incentivized to side with WeWork in every case, creating a conflict of interest that is not disclosed. Based on our preliminary investigation, no WeWork member has ever won a JAMS-arbitrated dispute against WeWork. Since WeWork members are never informed of case results – but JAMS and WeWork are privy to this information – WeWork cases submitted to JAMS are inherently unfair.

WeWork uses discrete companies for each of their workplaces to further obfuscate the claims it pursues against its members, as well as the work it gives to JAMS. Tauler Smith LLP has obtained a list of 36 company names and/or addresses for WeWork affiliates that have been involved in arbitrations administered by JAMS:

18691 Jamboree Rd., Irvine, CA 92612
1601 Vine St., Los Angeles, CA 90028
8305 Sunset Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90069
8687 Melrose Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90069
4041 MacArthur Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92660
600 B St., San Diego, CA 92101
71 Stevenson St., San Francisco, CA 94105
535 Mission St. 14th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105
3001 Bishop Dr., San Ramon, CA 94583
255 Giralda Ave. Floor 5, Coral Gables, FL 33134
78 SW 7th St., Miami, FL 33130
765 W. Peachtree St. NW #4, Atlanta, GA 30308
31 St. James Ave. 6th Floor, Boston, MA 02116
200 Portland St., Boston, MA 02114
625 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02139
1330 Lagoon Ave., Minneapolis, MN 55408
10845 Griffith Peak Dr. #2, Las Vegas, NV 89135
12 E. 49th St., New York, NY 10017
115 Broadway, New York, NY 10006
185 Madison Ave., New York, NY 10016
199 Water St., New York, NY 10038
222 Broadway 19th Floor, New York, NY 10038
300 Park Ave. 12th Floor, New York, NY 10022
401 Park Ave. S. 10th Floor, New York, NY 10016
500 7th Ave., New York, NY 10018
524 Broadway, New York, NY 10012
880 3rd Ave., New York, NY 10022
1115 Broadway, New York, NY 10010
1881 Broadway, New York, NY 10023
1201 3rd Ave., Seattle, WA 98101
Bastion Collective LLC
We Company
WeWork
WeWork Companies, Inc.
WeWork Companies LLC
WeWork Management LLC

How Much Money Does JAMS Make from Its Relationship with WeWork?

JAMS has thus far dismissed any concerns about impartiality or failure to disclose in WeWork cases without providing the data requested. A representative for JAMS stated that the company “administers approximately 15,000 cases per year” and “no single party or law firm significantly impacts JAMS’ total revenue.” The millions of dollars flowing to JAMS from WeWork provides a natural incentive for JAMS to continue ruling favorably for WeWork – which is easy because it is the same “Membership Agreement” being interpreted in each arbitration. Moreover, since JAMS and WeWork refuse to share with small business defendants any relevant information about past rulings, the small businesses remain unaware of the full nature of the WeWork-JAMS relationship. The small businesses will then fight the arbitration and pay JAMS even more fees, only to inevitably lose in front of a JAMS-provided arbitrator. There is no reason for JAMS to be fair because it is not in their financial interests.

JAMS would appear to have an incentive to rule in WeWork’s favor not just because of the many disputes they are currently arbitrating, but also because of all the future business that WeWork will continue to send their way. In other words, JAMS may want to keep WeWork happy because JAMS collects fees on every arbitration, and WeWork sends them a lot of business that generates fees.

Contact the California Business Fraud Lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP

Are you a small business owner who is being pursued by WeWork through JAMS? If so, you may have a possible legal claim against both WeWork and JAMS. WeWork uses JAMS to arbitrate legal disputes, and it is believed that WeWork has never lost a JAMS-administered dispute. You can schedule a free consultation with the California business fraud lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP by calling or sending an email.

Natrol Class Action for Anxiety Supplements

May 31, 2022/in False Advertising /by taulersmith

Tauler Smith LLP, a California law firm focusing on consumer fraud litigation, recently filed a class action complaint against supplement manufacturer Natrol LLC. The Natrol class action for anxiety supplements complaint asserts that Natrol is violating the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) by marketing its Relax+ Ultimate Calm supplement as a remedy for anxiety when it contains “ineffectual herbs, extracts, and other vitamins that plainly do not have the ability to treat anxiety.” The nutritional supplement lawsuit also alleges that when an individual uses unapproved anxiety medications like Relax+ Ultimate Calm instead of seeking treatment from a licensed doctor, they could worsen their mental health.

The Los Angeles false advertising lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP are bringing civil actions against companies that market and sell dietary supplements claiming to remedy anxiety. If you purchased one of these supplements, you may be eligible to join a class action lawsuit. Contact us today to discuss your options.

Nutritional Supplement Manufacturers Endanger Consumers with Unapproved Anxiety Drugs

Anxiety is a recognized mental disorder. When a person suffers from anxiety, they may be stricken with feelings of worry or fear while attempting to perform everyday activities. This is a major mental health concern for millions of Americans, with statistics showing that more than 40 million U.S. adults are affected by anxiety disorders. This includes millions of young children and teenagers who struggle with mental health problems.

According to the Mayo Clinic, the best way to treat an anxiety disorder is with medications prescribed by a licensed physician and psychotherapy provided by a mental health counselor. Additionally, the National Institute of Public Health (NIH) has stated that individuals should not self-diagnose or use over-the-counter supplements to treat anxiety. The nutritional supplement industry has attempted to capitalize on the country’s worsening mental health crisis in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic by making unsupported claims regarding the ability of their products to relieve conditions like anxiety. When anxiety is left untreated, it can be ruinous to individuals and lead to more serious conditions and diseases.

Natrol Accused of False Advertising of the Relax+ Ultimate Calm Supplement as a Remedy for Anxiety

Natrol is a U.S. manufacturer of vitamins, minerals, and nutritional supplements. The company’s headquarters are in Chatsworth, California. According to Dun & Bradstreet, Natrol’s annual revenues surpass $121 million, which is part of the $140 billion market for dietary supplements.

The complaint alleges that Natrol puts consumers at risk by advertising its Relax+ Ultimate Calm supplement as a treatment for anxiety. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a warning about the use of unapproved drugs to treat anxiety. Consumers who place their trust in nutritional supplement manufacturers may be more likely to forego seeking medical treatment for their health conditions, which can compound the effects of the disorders. Additionally, these individuals may be more likely to develop other mental and physical conditions because anxiety can cause depression, substance misuse, social isolation, and suicide.

Supplements Claiming to Treat Anxiety Violate the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act

The California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) is a consumer protection statute that is meant to safeguard individuals against business fraud, including “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in a transaction.” The CLRA, which is codified in Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750, makes it illegal for companies to mislead consumers in advertising or sales transactions. The statute explicitly prohibits companies from “representing that goods…have…characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities that they do not have.” Plaintiffs can bring private civil actions under the CLRA when they have been deceived by the acts or practices of a company in the sale of consumer goods such as nutritional or dietary supplements.

Natrol has been accused of making unsupported claims about the ability of its Relax+ Ultimate Calm product to relieve anxiety. On the product packaging, Natrol prominently represents that use of the Relax+ Ultimate Calm supplement will reduce “stress, anxiety & tension” and offer other health benefits. According to the complaint, these representations are untrue and unlawful.

Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Natrol for Violating the CLRA

The Los Angeles business fraud attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP have brought a class action lawsuit against Natrol for violating the CLRA. The legal complaint was filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. The complaint explains that an individual who consumes the Relax+ Ultimate Calm product “in lieu of a professional medical evaluation and treatment” is at risk of exacerbating their anxiety, as well as developing additional mental health disorders. Anyone who purchased the Relax+ Ultimate Calm supplement may be eligible to join the class action.

The class action lawsuit against Natrol seeks relief and judgment that includes the following:

An injunction that orders Natrol to correct its alleged deceptive marketing scheme and stop claiming that Relax+ Ultimate Calm is a remedy for anxiety.
An award of actual, punitive, and statutory damages to compensate the plaintiffs who purchased Relax+ Ultimate Calm.
Reimbursement of attorney’s fees for the plaintiffs.
Any other relief that the court may deem just and proper.

Did You Buy a Supplement That Claims to Treat Anxiety? Contact a California Consumer Fraud Lawyer Today

The California consumer fraud attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP are committed to protecting consumers against deceptive business practices. If you purchased a dietary supplement that claims to remedy anxiety, you should contact our legal team today to discuss your eligibility to join a class action lawsuit. Call 310-590-3927 or email us to schedule a free consultation.

Tauler Smith Obtains Judgment for Fraud Against PPE Scam

February 9, 2022/in Successes /by taulersmith

The California business fraud lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP recently helped a client obtain a judgment for fraud against a PPE scam. After a two-day bench trial, a U.S. District Court granted 100% of the compensatory damages sought by plaintiff Solmark International in the case.

L.A. Law Firm Tauler Smith LLP Secures Victory for Client in PPE Fraud Case

On February 4, 2022, federal judge Hon. Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. for the United States District Court for the Central District of California entered Judgment for Fraud on behalf of Tauler Smith client Solmark International against PPE scammers.

Solmark International is a major supplier of personal protective equipment to companies in the United States. The defendants in the case were PPE scammers who had engaged in a scheme to sell non-existent PPE (personal protective equipment) to national distributors like Solmark. The PPE fraud scheme began with the defendants falsely representing that they had acquired millions of masks to service Solmark International’s clients who were looking to return to work more safely during the COVID-19 pandemic. Once the defendants received a bank wire transfer for the PPE products, they effectively vanished. This resulted in a series of defaults from the defendants.

Solmark International then filed suit in 2020 with predecessor counsel, and the case was scheduled for trial in late-2021. Los Angeles law firm Tauler Smith LLP ultimately helped the plaintiff secure a favorable judgment and recover significant compensation.

Federal Court Issues Final Judgment in Favor of Solmark International

A final judgment was issued by United States District Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. on February 4, 2022. The specifics of the federal court’s ruling were as follows:

Compensatory Damages: The defendants were ordered to pay plaintiff Solmark International the sum of approximately $100,000.
Counterclaims Dismissed: The defendants’ counterclaims against Solmark International were dismissed.

Attorney Robert Tauler Fights for Victims of Business Fraud in California

“I am very pleased our team was able to obtain a fraud judgment against dishonest people who thought only about themselves at the expense of others during such a sensitive time in our history,” said L.A. business fraud attorney Robert Tauler. “I am fortunate to have clients like Solmark International that believe justice is worth fighting for.”

Tauler Smith LLP is a law firm with a history of success in California business fraud cases. Our experienced litigators have successfully represented clients in business disputes and fraud matters in both local California courts and federal courts. We understand the nuances of this complicated area of the law, and we have the institutional expertise needed to guide you through the legal system and get you the compensation you deserve.

Contact the Los Angeles Business Fraud Lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP

If you were a victim of business fraud, corporate fraud, or consumer fraud, the litigators at Tauler Smith LLP can help you. Call 310-590-3927 or fill out the online contact form to schedule a free consultation.

Do Businesses Need Liability Protection for COVID-19?

October 20, 2020/in Press /by taulersmith

California commercial litigators are paying close attention to new laws under consideration during the coronavirus pandemic. The reality is that COVID-19 has caused significant problems for a lot of businesses, especially those that were forced to close down or limit access. One way that Republicans in the United States Congress are responding is by attempting to pass legislation that would give businesses strong protections against being sued by workers and customers who become ill. If this law passes, anyone who gets sick while in a retail store or in an office would find it almost impossible to bring a successful lawsuit against the business.

Do businesses need liability protection for COVID-19? Keep reading this blog to learn more.

Los Angeles Commercial Litigator Robert Tauler Quoted in Article About Coronavirus Legislation

Inc. Magazine recently asked Los Angeles commercial litigator Robert Tauler for his opinion on the GOP’s proposed COVID-19 legislation that would make it more difficult for employees and consumers to file civil suits against businesses. Here are a few excerpts from that article:

This…is the nightmare business scenario that the GOP hoped to avoid by proposing to enhance liability protections for businesses in its version of a Phase 4 stimulus bill, dubbed the Heals Act. The legislation would raise the bar for filing liability claims surrounding Covid-19. Rather than requiring plaintiffs to prove a company did not take reasonable care to prevent injury, sickness, or death on their premises–the current standard of liability–it would require them to prove that a company acted grossly unreasonably.
“They have to show that the exposure caused the plaintiff to contract the coronavirus,” and that the business did nothing to prevent consumers from getting sick, says Robert Tauler, managing partner at Tauler Smith, a Los Angeles law firm that focuses on commercial litigation. “That is a very, very difficult standard to meet,” he says, adding: “It would basically cut any lawsuit off at the knees.”

Read the full article on Inc.com.

Tauler Smith LLP Sues Chase Bank & SBA for PPP Loan Fraud

April 20, 2020/in Business Disputes /by taulersmith

The business fraud attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP recently filed a lawsuit against Chase Bank for PPP loan fraud. The civil suit alleges that JPMorgan Chase committed fraud by helping its rich clients at the expense of small business owner clients. Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan funds made available in response to the coronavirus pandemic were supposed to be distributed on a “first come, first served” basis. But that’s not what happened. Instead, Chase Bank gave preferential treatment to their larger clients, while making misrepresentations to small businesses that ultimately resulted in loans being delayed and denied when the funds ran out. Tauler Smith LLP is representing the plaintiff in this case, as well as other small businesses who were denied PPP loans.

To learn more about the PPP fraud lawsuit filed against Chase Bank, keep reading.

Tauler Smith LLP Files Lawsuit Against Chase Bank for PPP Loan Fraud

The plaintiff in the civil suit is Outlet Tile Center, a California business with six (6) employees. Outlet Tile Center provides flooring for homes and businesses, and they do their banking with Chase. The business fraud lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP filed this lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiff, who was denied an opportunity to receive much-needed financial help because of the defendants’ fraud.

Click here to view the lawsuit.

Chase Bank Accused of Unfair Business Practices

In response to the coronavirus pandemic, the United States Congress passed several laws that affected businesses. For example, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) and appropriated $340 billion in funds to be distributed to small businesses who needed help covering payroll. According to the lawsuit, by the time Chase Bank’s online portal opened to small businesses, the bank had already personally solicited and submitted all of the loans for its rich clients.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. received significant fees for all PPP loans they processed, so they had an incentive to push through loan applications of their rich clients. In just two (2) weeks, Chase made over $700 million in fees. Moreover, Chase had no incentive to review any of the applications and verify if the information was accurate. According to a government report, the average approved loan for Chase through this program was over $500,000. These were not the kinds of small businesses that were supposed to be receiving help through the CARES Act.

U.S. Small Business Administration Accused of PPP Loan Fraud

The other named defendant in the case is the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), a federal agency that exists for the purpose of supporting small businesses throughout the country. One of the ways in which the SBA provided financial assistance to small businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic was through the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), which received additional funds through the CARES Act. The SBA allowed companies to apply for emergency PPP loans so that they could maintain their workforces even as coronavirus was causing many offices to shut down for an extended period of time. The idea was that the companies would use a certain percentage of the funds to pay their employees, and then the federal government would relieve them of the need to repay the loans.

Billions of dollars were allocated for the loans, and they were meant to help small businesses. Unfortunately, a lot of larger companies found ways around the restrictions and ended up taking a lot of that money – at the expense of the smaller businesses for which the loans were originally intended. In fact, just two (2) weeks after the PPP loans were made available, the funds had already been exhausted. This meant that many small business owners never had an opportunity to get the financial assistance they desperately needed during COVID. A lot of those small businesses were forced to close permanently, and their workforces were laid off.

Contact the California Business Fraud Lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP

If you are a small business owner who was defrauded by Chase Bank or any other entity committing unfair business practices, the attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP can help you. Call 310-590-3927, or send an email to schedule a free consultation.

Payment Protection Program (PPP) Lawsuit

April 17, 2020/in Business Disputes /by taulersmith

California law firm Tauler Smith LLP is representing small businesses that did not obtain funding through the Payment Protection Program (PPP). These PPP loans were intended to benefit small businesses impacted by COVID-19, but many small business owners did not receive the funds they were promised. If you were denied a PPP loan, our experienced business fraud attorneys can help you file a lawsuit.

Small Businesses Denied PPP Loans May Be Able to Sue

The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) was supposed to distribute PPP loans to small businesses who needed the funds to cover payroll and avoid layoffs during the coronavirus pandemic. These loans had favorable terms, and they were administered by the government and banking institutions under the CARES Act. On April 16, 2020, the government announced that the program ran out of funding. In some cases, this was due to fraud by the financial institutions that were processing the loans.

Contact the California Business Fraud Attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP

If you are a small business owner who applied for PPP funding through a lender and have been denied funding, you may have standing to file a lawsuit to obtain the funding that was promised. To learn more about potentially being a plaintiff in class action litigation, fill out the questionnaire below. A member of our team will then contact you. (The information you provide below is confidential and will not be shared with anyone outside Tauler Smith LLP without your prior consent.)

Wedding Cancelled by Coronavirus? Here Are Your Legal Options

March 30, 2020/in Business Disputes /by taulersmith

As wedding season approaches, couples across the nation are faced with the grim reality that their weddings have been involuntarily canceled due to the global coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. This problem can be compounded when the chosen wedding venue refuses to refund the deposit or allow the couple to get out of the original contract. Consequently, we are likely to see an onslaught of lawsuits against wedding venues and vendors in the year to come, particularly breach of contract claims by brides-to-be against wedding venues and vendors for refusal to refund advanced payments for a wedding that never occurs.

If your wedding was canceled by coronavirus, you do have legal options. Your first step should be to speak with an experienced California business dispute lawyer who understands the relevant statutes and who can help you get out of the contract.

Legal Claims for Couples Whose Weddings Were Canceled Because of COVID-19

Finding out that you can no longer have your wedding at the venue you chose is already devastating enough without the possibility that you may be forced to pay for the wedding anyway. Fortunately, there is some hope for couples who need to get out of written contracts. For example, some wedding contracts may contain force majeure provisions, which means that you may be able to rescind your wedding contract if it is impossible to execute. Along those same lines, your wedding contract may be considered an unenforceable contract because it is against public policy.

What Is the Law on Wedding Contracts in California?

Wedding contracts create special circumstances around would-be newlyweds. The United States government has declared a national emergency. Certain states, such as California, have issued orders implementing “shelter in place” of all residents, ordering closure of all nonessential businesses, and prohibiting gatherings of more than 10 people. These rules have arguably created a public policy that weddings cannot go forward during the crisis.

Generally, a legal claim fails if it is based on an agreement that violates law and is contrary to public policy. In Kashani v. Tsann Kuen China Enter. Co., a California Appellate Court ruled that the law “has a long history of recognizing the general rule that certain contracts, though properly entered into in all other respects, will not be enforced if found to be contrary to public policy.” Given the public prohibition in California regarding gatherings of 10 or more people during the COVID-19 pandemic, anyone attending, hosting, or working a wedding would be acting contrary to public policy by threatening public health. Consider the legal implications for a bride who hires a wedding photographer, only to later find out that the wedding was canceled because of coronavirus. Legally speaking, that bride might not be obligated to pay the photographer.

Contact the Los Angeles Business Dispute Lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP

The challenge with wedding vendor contracts is the prevailing industry standard, whereby all services are typically pre-paid in full. Given the unprecedented circumstances created by the COVID-19 pandemic, the best move you can make right now is to speak with an attorney who understands California contract law, particularly as it relates to businesses.

The Los Angeles business dispute lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP can advise you regarding your rights and obligations. We can also help you navigate the complex legal process. Call us at 310-590-3927 or send an email.

Beware of Fake Cures for the Coronavirus

March 22, 2020/in False Advertising /by taulersmith

Companies peddling herbal remedies and other nutritional supplement products that protect against COVID-19 are violating the law. Consumers need to beware of fake cures for the coronavirus. If you purchased one of these over-the-counter supplements that supposedly treat coronavirus, you should consider taking immediate legal action. Your first should be to speak with a qualified California false advertising attorney who can explain your legal options.

To learn more about fake nutritional supplements that are being marketed as cures for coronavirus, keep reading.

FDA Warns Consumers About Fake Treatments for COVID-19

Growing fears about the COVID-19 pandemic have led to a dramatic rise in the sale of fraudulent nutritional supplements that claim to cure or prevent the disease. This phenomenon is not new. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) itself has acknowledged that “during emergency situations or outbreaks, fraudulent products claiming to prevent, treat or cure conditions associated with the emergency or outbreak almost always appear for sale.”

Thus, on March 6, 2020 the FDA issued warning letters to several companies selling fake treatments for the coronavirus. The most infamous recipient of the warning letters, televangelist Jim Bakker, marketed a product that would “kill” coronavirus. Bakker’s promotional videos claimed that the “Silver Solution” supplement was “tested on other strains of the coronavirus, and has been able to eliminate it within 12 hours, totally eliminate it, kills it, deactivates it.” Although these statements were arguably framed to evade false advertising lawsuits from consumers of coronavirus remedies, the statements are still considered unlawful.

Fraudulent claims about coronavirus remedies are not limited to televangelists. Many dishonest sellers of herbal products have also peddled homeopathic cures to the novel coronavirus that have no basis in reality. These include Amy Weidner of Herbal Amy, Inc., who claimed without any scientific support that “a number of herbs are strongly antiviral for corona viruses” in order to sell a formulation of various herbs on her website that she claimed were “preventative” and would protect consumers against the virus. Other websites have gone even further, selling four (4) different herbal remedies to treat coronavirus and dangerously instructing their customers who are infected with coronavirus to “take all 4 products and use the infection dosage.”

The dangers of marketing herbal products to treat a novel and deadly disease cannot be understated. At worst, consumers without access to medical care may forego medical treatment based on false claims. At minimum, consumers will shell out hard-earned money for fake products that will do nothing to keep them safe. Moreover, these negative consequences could get worse in the weeks and months ahead. As the pandemic spreads, so too will the opportunities for fraud. In the short time that coronavirus has impacted daily life, a variety of fake remedies have evolved in products ranging from colloidal silver, ionic silver, herbal teas, and even essential oils like eucalyptus – all claiming they can cure or treat coronavirus.

Contact the Los Angeles False Advertising Attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP

If you purchased nutritional supplements or any other products that claim to cure or prevent coronavirus, it’s possible that you were misled by false advertising from unethical and immoral companies attempting to capitalize on the public health crisis for their own financial benefit. The Los Angeles false advertising attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP can investigate your claims and potentially help you get financial compensation.

Call 310-590-3927 or send us an email to schedule a free consultation.

Coronavirus and Broken Contracts

March 14, 2020/in Business Disputes /by taulersmith

The COVID-19 pandemic has left a trail of thousands of broken contracts in its wake, and this has come in a wide range of industries. From event cancelations to broken supply chains, coronavirus has caused millions of dollars in commercial losses and business interruption. Moreover, coronavirus and broken contracts could be a familiar theme in the coming months, as travel restrictions, event postponements, school and business closures, quarantines, supply-chain disruptions, cash flow problems, and worker shortages are expected to increase. This has left many California business owners to wonder: who is liable for the disruption caused by COVID-19? The answer could lie in what is known as the “force majeure” provision found in many contracts.

To learn more about the legal consequences for businesses that are forced to break contracts because of the coronavirus, keep reading.

What Is the Force Majeure Provision in Contract Law?

One provision often contained in comprehensive contracts is that of “force majeure.” Typically, force majeure provisions are included in contracts to excuse a breach if unforeseen circumstances prevent a party’s performance of the contract. This often means an act of God, such as hurricanes, war, earthquakes, etc. The force majeure doctrine is also commonly referenced as “impossibility of performance.”

Force majeure is literally French for “superior force,” and the concept originated in the Napoleonic Code of 1804. The breaching party to an agreement was condemned unless their non-performance or delay in performance resulted from a cause that could not be imputed to them, such as a superior force or a fortuitous occurrence.

What Could Force Majeure Mean for Broken Contracts Caused by COVID-19?

For most businesses, coronavirus is an unforeseen circumstance out of their control. But these cases can still result in litigation because the application of force majeure to any particular contract must be done by applying the law of the relevant jurisdiction. In California, the law recognizes that parties may not be held liable when unforeseen circumstances prevent them from fulfilling their contractual obligations, regardless of whether or not the contract has a force majeure clause. The leading California Supreme Court case defines force majeure as an “insuperable interference” occurring without the party’s intervention that “could not have been prevented by the exercise of prudence, diligence and care.” Insuperable in this context means “impossible to overcome.” Although the case dates back to World War II, it has been cited as recently as 2015 as proper guidance for the interpretation of contracts in California.

Support for this court decision comes from the State of California definition of “force majeure.” In its standard Judicial Council contracts, California defines force majeure as “a delay which impacts the timely performance of work for which neither Contractor nor the State are liable because such delay or failure to perform was unforeseeable and beyond the control of the party.” The standard contract goes on to specifically list “quarantine or epidemic” as such a circumstance. Thus, quarantines resulting from the coronavirus pandemic would render this provision operable and could excuse any California businesses that are forced to break a contract because of COVID-19.

Contact the Los Angeles Business Dispute Lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP

Many contracts do not contain specific language in force majeure provisions. Thus, each contract must be carefully analyzed with the law of the jurisdiction in order for businesses to understand their options. Force majeure is one of many tools that business owners and individuals can use to mitigate the fallout from the current crisis. If you are a business owner who was forced to break a contract due to coronavirus, you have options to escape ruinous consequences.

The Los Angeles business dispute attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP can help you. Call 310-590-3927 or send us an email.