A class action lawsuit claims that LifeLock, a life insurance company, falls short of its claims it makes to customers in its television, radio, and internet advertising. The LifeLock class action suit states that the Federal Trade Commission has brought such legal action against the company on at least two separate occasions, yet LifeLock persists to misrepresent the services it purports to offer to customers. According to the complaint, LifeLock offers a “bait and switch” policy in which a customer pays a premium for a one-time enrollment fee, then receives no coverage from LifeLock once they renew their term. The complaint further states that after the customer re-enrolls with LifeLock they receive a bill for over $100 that they believe covers their original enrollment.
LifeLock Class Action Lawsuits
The plaintiff in the LifeLock class-action lawsuit is seeking damages for not only receiving these bills, but also because the company has failed to make any type of coverage payment to them. The claim is similar to cases wherein individuals have made premium payments and received nothing from LifeLock. In most instances, a lead plaintiff will receive a check from LifeLock after filing the class-action lawsuit. However, in certain cases where no claim has been filed, LifeLock will send a check for a supposed LifeLock premium that was never paid.
This case is rather unique, as there is currently a class-action lawsuit against another company, A&D Insurance Company, Inc., for their false advertising and its refusal to pay the lead plaintiff’s attorney fees. Additionally, this is not the first time that LifeLock has been the target of such a lawsuit. In fact, in the past three years, they have settled more than 20 cases that were related to false advertising and their refusal to pay. It is unknown what will happen with this case now that there is already a lawsuit against them.
One common strategy used by companies like LifeLock is to use the same tactic that many large corporations use against small businesses who are trying to assert their rights in a class-action lawsuit. Essentially, the company will argue that due to the nature of their business, or because these plaintiffs came into direct contact with one another at a work-related activity, it is unlikely that any harm resulted from this contact. They essentially argue that even if there was some damage done, it would not be caused by the defendant’s conduct and/or policies, as these activities were performed “off the job.” (In other words, during normal working hours.) As a result of this argument, a lead plaintiff often feels trapped within the class-action lawsuit.
The Lifelock lawsuit is being handled by two law firms, and both law firms have received positive ratings by J.D. Powers and Associates. However, one of the attorneys handling the lawsuit has received negative attention from some sources, primarily because of his representation of the tobacco industry. According to news reports, attorney Joseph Lora, of Lora & Associates, has represented the tobacco industry in class-action lawsuits in the past.
Lifelock and similar class-action lawsuits are becoming more commonplace, particularly since life-shaping litigation such as the Cancer Settlement Funding lawsuit recently brought by the Aetna health insurance company. Such lawsuits allow victims of wrongful death and other injury victims the opportunity to pursue justice for the loss of their life. Unfortunately, some lawyers are circumventing the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by attempting to use class-action arguments in court in order to steer potential cases away from their clients’ lawyer, and thus allow them to receive a larger share of the settlement money. Unfortunately, many of these lawyers refuse to adhere to the FDCPA’s strict rules of evidence and fail to provide any reasonable evidence in support of their claims.
