class action

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Lawsuit: Safe Melt Not Safe for Pets

Safe MeltIn March, two New York consumers sued the manufacturer of Safe Melt — a snow and ice melter specifically marketed to pet owners as “pet safe” and “pet friendly.” [See complaint.]

After walking on areas treated with Safe Melt, which is 100% magnesium chloride, their dogs suffered various injuries including paw and skin irritation and lesions, and one dog developed kidney disease and died.

*MOUSE PRINT:

The lawsuit contends:

… Safe Melt is not safe for pets. It is composed entirely of magnesium chloride (“MCL”), which is harmful for pets to ingest and dangerous for them to touch. Safe Melt can cause gastrointestinal irritation, diarrhea, bloody vomiting, respiratory depression, kidney failure, and cardiac arrest to pets that eat it, lick it, or groom their paws after walking over it. It can also cause chemical burns, cracked paw pads, and painful irritation if it gets embedded in pets’ fur or has direct contact with their skin.

Apparently the company contends that the “pet safe” claim refers to the fact that their product comes in round pellets, rather than sharp, jagged crystals which could cut into pets’ paws. And their website says that the product “won’t burn or irritate pets’ paws.”

The consumers say they paid a premium price for this supposedly safe product and want their money back. The lawyers are suing claiming misrepresentation and false advertising.

If you see a claim on ice melter that says “safe for pets,” what do you understand that to mean?

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Red Sox Sued Over Junk Fees, Misleading Seat Prices

A lawsuit was filed in January by some Boston Red Sox ticket buyers alleging that the ball club for a number of years advertised misleading low prices for tickets but then jacked up the total price by adding various junk fees at the end of the online purchasing transaction.

In the suit [see complaint] the consumers’ lawyers alleged:

*MOUSE PRINT:

The Red Sox’s false advertising centers on their use of drip pricing and junk fees. Specifically, the Red Sox would advertise illusorily low prices for their tickets. When purchasers attempted to buy those tickets, however, the Red Sox would add mandatory fees at the last minute, such as “Per-Ticket Fees” and “Order Fees,” that could increase the cost of a purchase by as much as 150%.

After ticket buyers saw the advertised price for the tickets they wanted and added them to their cart, a countdown clock popped up giving them five minutes to complete the transaction. Only as buyers got close to finalizing their purchase were “per-ticket fees” and “order fees” added to their bill which could substantially increase the ticket price, particularly on cheaper tickets.

For example, one of the ticket buyers in the case was purchasing a $21 ticket, but when the junk fees were added on, the total came to $31.50.

The lawsuit focuses on the 2022 to 2024 baseball seasons. After that state and federal regulations kicked in requiring the complete pricing of event tickets upfront.

In particular the FTC’s Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees went into effect in May 2025, requiring businesses that sell live-event tickets and short-term lodging to disclose the total price upfront.

Similarly, the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office issued new junk fee regulations in September 2025 requiring that the initial price shown to consumers be the total price except for shipping and government taxes.

Like Ticketmaster which was sued for similar alleged deceptive practices and subsequently started advertising complete prices upfront, the Boston Red Sox now do the same thing:

Red Sox ticket purchase 2026

You now see the total price including fees when first searching for tickets.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Delta and United Sued Over Window Seats Without Windows

In August, consumers filed two class action lawsuits — one against Delta and the other against United Airlines — for charging premium prices for window seats that did not have windows adjacent to them.

Delta wall where window would normally be

In the complaint against Delta, the consumer’s lawyer contends:

For many years Delta has knowingly and routinely sold windowless window seats to travelers. For instance various models of Delta’s Boeing 737 Boeing 757 and Airbus A321 aircraft are built with one or more seats that would traditionally have window but do not include one due to the placement of air conditioning ducts electrical conduits or other interior components. Delta operates hundreds of these planes which each make multiple flights every day. As result Delta has likely sold over million windowless window seats throughout the class period.

This poor consumer who brought the case, the complaint says, spent four-and-a-half hours on his flight from Atlanta to Orange County, California seated against a blank wall.

Apparently other airlines like American and Alaska that sell windowless window seats provide a warning during the reservation process disclosing that those seats have no actual window.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Delta competitors disclose no window view

In the United Airlines case, lawyers for the airline are asking that the case be dismissed, arguing that “window” refers to the position of the seat and not any potential view from that seat, saying in part:

“The use of the word ‘window’ in reference to a particular seat cannot reasonably be interpreted as a promise that the seat will have an exterior window view.

Rather, the word ‘window’ identifies the position of the seat — i.e., next to the wall of the main body of the aircraft.”

United’s lawyers also made a very clever argument when they asserted that the airline’s contract of carriage — the formal agreement between the airline and passengers — “does not contain any promise that seats in the window position of any aircraft will have exterior window views.”

*MOUSE PRINT:

We scoured their contract of carriage and in fact there is no disclosure at all in reference to window seats having or not having a view. There is also nothing in the contract of carriage that guarantees you won’t be sucked into the airplane’s toilet and be ejected from the plane somewhere over Kansas!

Safe travels. Happy Thanksgiving to all our loyal readers.

P.S. You can visit Aero Lopa to see window placements and seat maps for most major airplanes and carriers.