Businesses Face Coming Tidal Wave of COVID-19 Litigation
With businesses struggling to survive government-imposed shutdowns, an imminent tidal wave of litigation will compound their difficulties as consumers and injured parties seek compensation for COVID-related losses.
April 30, 2020 at 01:04 PM
5 minute read
With businesses struggling to survive government-imposed shutdowns, an imminent tidal wave of litigation will compound their difficulties as consumers and injured parties seek compensation for COVID-related losses. The plaintiffs bar has overcome any perceived stigma from capitalizing on the pandemic, and the recent flurry of class actions filings, some right here in South Florida, may be the tip of the iceberg for what lies ahead.
Consumer Class Actions
Consumer class actions have been filed recently against businesses that continued charging dues and membership fees despite their business operations being substantially shut down or curtailed because of the pandemic. Blank v. Youfit Health Clubs, No. CACE2006161 (Broward Circuit, Fla.) involved allegations of deceptive trade practices when the gym continued to charge members monthly fees despite its facilities being closed due to the novel coronavirus outbreak. See also Delvercchio v. Boston Sports Clubs, No. 20-cv-10666 (D. Mass.); Jampol v. Blink Holdings, No. 20-cv-02760 (S.D.N.Y.); and Namorato v. New York Sports Clubs, No. 20-cv-02580 (S.D.N.Y.). Similarly, in Hunt v. Vail, 4:20-cv-02463 (N.D. Cal.) the plaintiff sued Vail Resorts for refusing to refund passholder fees when it closed its mountain for the ski season.
Another common theme is that goods or products fail to protect against COVID-19 as represented. For example, two leading makers of hand sanitizers, Purell and Germ-X, were hit with class actions alleging the defendants falsely advertised their products as being effective at preventing the flu and other viral diseases. According to the complaints, there are no reliable studies to support these representations, which the plaintiffs claim allow the defendants to unlawfully increase their sales. See SGonzalez v. Gojo Industries, 1:20-cv-00888 (S.D.N.Y.) and David v. Vi-Jon, 3:20-cv-00424 (S.D. Cal.).
Lastly, cancelled or rescheduled events have led to a host of consumer suits and class actions over refunds and fees charged by organizers. Ticketmaster and Live Nation were recently hit with a class action over events postponed due to COVID-19, alleging they are making customers bear the costs of thousands of disrupted events by retroactively changing their refund policy, see Hansen v. Ticketmaster Entertainment, 3:20-cv-02685 (N.D. Cal.)
Failure to Warn or Protect from COVID-19 Exposure
In a variety of suits, plaintiffs allege businesses failed to adequately protect employees or customers from the virus, including failure to adequately clean and sanitize the premises, to provide protective equipment, to warn that other employees tested positive for COVID-19 and to screen workers for the virus. Among these lawsuits is a wrongful death case brought by the family of a deceased Walmart employee alleging the store failed to take steps to protect its workers, to cleanse and sterilize the store, to provide employees with personal protective equipment, and to promote and enforce social distancing and follow other CDC directives. See Evans v. Walmart, No. 2020L003938 (Cook County, Ill.). Similarly, in Archer v. Carnival, No. 20-cv-02381 (N.D. Cal.) passengers of the Grand Princess who were quarantined at Travis Air Force Base filed a class action against the cruise line's operators. In the suit, the plaintiffs allege the cruise line owners failed to provide early warnings of the escalating COVID-19 health crisis aboard the ship, delayed cabin-based quarantine and the cancellation of large events, and waited too long to start increased sanitation procedures. This theme of inadequate response to the pandemic could play out in a range of scenarios as injured individuals and their families cast blame for contracting the virus.
Securities Class Actions
Not surprisingly, given the pandemic's immediate impact on the stock market, securities class actions are also part of this wave of litigation. Recent examples include a lawsuit claiming that Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. made public statements promoting the company's financial performance at the outset of the crisis that artificially inflated the company's stock price Douglas v. Norwegian Cruise Lines, No. 1:20-cv-21107 (S.D. Fla.). Another securities class action alleges that a pharmaceutical company induced investors to acquire stock at artificially inflated prices resulting from misleading statements by the company's CEO that the company had developed a vaccine for COVID-19 McDermid v. Inovio Pharmaceuticals, No. 2:20-cv-01402 (E.D. Pa.). Similar suits may arise as companies make difficult decisions about how to address the impact of the crisis in public filings and through accounting decisions.
Financial Services Litigation
In Shuff v. Bank of America, No. 5:20-cv-00184 (S.D. W. Va.), homeowners facing foreclosure sought injunctive relief on behalf of a class, arguing that the public auctions allegedly required by the parties' contracts and West Virginia law could not be conducted because of the coronavirus outbreak. Several lawsuits have also been filed alleging that banks were discriminatorily prioritizing current account holders for extensions of loans under the Paycheck Protection Program.
Recommended Best Practices
Businesses must be ready to adapt quickly, as the federal government, states, municipalities and regulatory bodies are issuing new directives and guidance on a daily basis. It is imperative for businesses to follow best practices and directives from the CDC and local government authorities for managing the pandemic and dealing with employee and customer safety. To help quell costly litigation, tracking and addressing consumer complaints can identify problems before they turn into bigger issues. Finally, any business that has recurring charges for its clients and customers must assess whether value is still being provided despite limited business operations.
Sam Felker and Matthew Mulqueen practice with Baker Donelson and focus on class actions and complex litigation. Contact them at [email protected] and [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLeveraging the Power of Local Chambers of Commerce: A Second-Career Lawyer’s Guide to Building a Thriving Practice
5 minute readCFPB Proposes Rule to Regulate Data Brokers Selling Sensitive Information
5 minute readEssential Labor Shifts: Navigating Noncompetes, Workplace Politics and the AI Revolution
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Reviewing Judge Merchan's Unconditional Discharge
- 2With New Civil Jury Selection Rule, Litigants Should Carefully Weigh Waiver Risks
- 3Young Lawyers Become Old(er) Lawyers
- 4Caught In the In Between: A Legal Roadmap for the Sandwich Generation
- 5Top 10 Developments, Lessons, and Reminders of 2024
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250