Were This Class Action Lawsuit Worth Time And Effort?

The Lifelock Class Action lawsuit is a class action lawsuit which purports to bring about justice and fair compensation to those who have fallen victim to the false advertising of Lifelock. The company, through its affiliates, has deceived its clients into buying life insurance policies with the promises that they will be able to achieve permanent life extension and the benefits that these policies come with. However, none of these things have been made possible by the defendant in any way. The defendant has not brought forth any scientific evidence regarding the ways in which it can make people live longer by promoting the products that it advertises.

Lifelock Class Action Lawsuit

The Lifelock class action lawsuit states that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has brought about legal action against this company on two different occasions, but that LifeLock still refuses to acknowledge responsibility and that it continues to misrepresent the services that it purports to offer to its customers. Furthermore, the class action lawsuit further states that since the defendants had a valid business purpose to offer a reverse mortgage product to those who are sixty-five years of age or older but did not obtain approval from the FHA or VA to do so, and had a defective marketing plan to target this demographic, the resulting damage to the plaintiffs has been unjustifiable.

In both instances, the plaintiffs were eligible for settlement damages based on their injuries, lost wages, medical expenses, pain and suffering, and other forms of financial loss. If the defendant had marketed the LifeLock product to this demographic knowingly and intentionally with disregard for the obvious deficiencies in the plan, then the defaulter is entitled to a much larger potential award based on the actual damages.

The Lifelock class action lawsuit also claims that this company’s automatic renewal clause increases the potential for the defendant to receive profits from future cases without having to re-apply for insurance again. However, the plaintiffs argue that this increase in profitability from such settlements does not result in an improvement in the quality of the defendants’ policies and does not prevent them from thereafter discriminating against plaintiffs. In both instances, a dismissal of the case would be appropriate.

In addition to the above discussed cases, another plaintiff in the Lifelock case, Stephen J. Kubotich, claimed that he was falsely advertising the benefits of a Reverse Seized Property in a direct mail brochure that he sent to prospective class members. He further alleged that LifeLock violated a state law that requires certain advertisements to provide reasonable notice of their contents.

According to Mr. Kubotich, he purchased a mail-in brochure from LifeLock at his home, which he returned only after reading the letter attached there. The plaintiff further alleged that when he complained to LifeLock about this violation of the law, the company’s counsel advised him to contact the Arizona State Attorneys General.

As with the prior cases discussed above, Mr. Kubotich asserts that he signed the contract provided by LifeLock, which contained the promise to reimburse him for any damages “in connection with the utilization of its services.” According to Mr. Kubotich, he never had any dealings with LifeLock and that he never had a problem with the company’s representatives, whom he had consulted, regarding his complaints about false advertising.

After he refused to pay for the Brokers’ fees, LifeLock “reprimanded” him, according to his complaint. Mr. Kubotich ultimately decided to sue LifeLock on the basis that he had been falsely advertised, as well as owing funds to the bank that had loaned money to LifeLock. He further alleged that he suffered injury as a result of this breach of contract and that he has suffered an impaired ability to obtain employment and suffered monetary losses as a result of LifeLock’s false advertising.

In this particular instance, the court found that LifeLock failed to make a sufficient showing of how the advertisement violated the statute.

In reaching this conclusion, the court stated that because LifeLock was not a publicly traded company and because it had only recently formed, it could not reasonably be expected to have adhered to federal or state advertising regulations. Accordingly, the court found that LifeLock’s claims against Mr. Kubotich were preempted because, in light of the company’s status as a newly established firm, no such advertising would have a likelihood of misleading even a person buying a policy from a competing insurance company. Finally, in our view, the evidence presented by LifeLock’s attorney did not support the class action lawsuit complaint and was unreliable as a basis for this action.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *