Law firms in San Francisco and Washington, D.C., Wednesday filed a class-action complaint in San Jose, Calif., federal court against Google, and its Buzz technology, on behalf of Eva Hibnick, a 24-year-old Harvard Law School student.

The suit, reported by ABC News, is the first reported suit filed against Google about Buzz, which unexpectedly exposed relationships users had with others when Google turned on the technology. Google has since offered two methods to turn off Buzz.

Lawyers with nearly two dozen firms around the country hope to consolidate their claims that Toyota Motor Corp.'s recalls have cost customers billions of dollars.

P. Tim Howard, a Northeastern University law professor leading the group seeking class-action status for numerous existing lawsuits, said Wednesday that the more than 8 million vehicles recalled by Toyota have collectively lost more than $2 billion in resale value because of the recalls.

Kelley Blue Book and other automotive guides have warned that the recalls begun in November are eroding the value of Toyotas. The car appraisal guide estimated Wednesday that the resale value of recalled cars and trucks will fall another 1.5 percent. That's on top of a drop of 1 percent to 3 percent Blue Book analysts forecast last week.

Howard, who litigated against tobacco companies in the 1990s, also said he will seek damages for Toyota drivers who have decided not to use their recalled vehicles, although the value is more difficult to determine.

Toyota Motor Corp. was sued today in Los Angeles federal court for failing to disclose to investors that there was a major design defect in the automaker's acceleration systems.

The proposed class action complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in downtown Los Angeles by a San Diego law firm on behalf of all purchasers of Toyota publicly traded securities, accuses Toyota, certain of its affiliates and certain of their officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The suit alleges that Toyota issued "materially false and misleading statements" regarding its operations and its business and financial results and outlook when the company knew it had a design problem.

"Defendants misled investors by failing to disclose that there was a major design defect in Toyota's acceleration system, which could cause unintended acceleration," the lawsuit, filed by the firm Coughlin Stoia, alleges.

"As a result of defendants' false statements, Toyota's securities traded at artificially inflated prices - reaching a high of $91.78 per share on Jan. 19."

Toyota's stock price had fallen to $73.49 per share on Feb. 3.

Toyota was also sued Friday in Los Angeles County Superior Court on behalf of all affected owners of the 2010-year Prius and the 2010 Lexus HS250h hybrid. Both models share the same braking system, which has been the object of consumer complaints.

A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday upheld a federal judge's decision to block the hourly employees from filing a class action lawsuit.

The judge had ruled that the court inquiries into each employee's individual situation would "swamp" any of the group's common issues.

The employees contend that FedEx has engaged in a "pervasive and long-standing policy" of failing to pay hourly employees for all time worked.

FedEx hourly employees are required to manually enter their scheduled start, end and break times into a hand-held tracker. But employees also use time cards as a backup tracking method.

The group claims they frequently worked during unpaid breaks. They also say they weren't paid for the gap periods between punching in or out on a time clock and when they actually started or finished work.

For example, if an employee punched in at 7:45 a.m. but entered a start time of 8 a.m. into the tracker, there would be a 15-minute gap for which the employee would not be paid.

A spokesman for FedEx wasn't immediately able to comment on the ruling Monday.

The high court agreed Tuesday to review Merck's challenge to a federal appeals court's reinstatement of a class-action securities lawsuit.

Investors had charged Merck with providing misleading information or omitting information about the risks of Vioxx. A U.S. District judge dismissed the November 2003 lawsuit, ruling that all the plaintiffs' claims were time-barred under the statute of limitation.

But the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided to allow the lawsuits and Merck appealed to the Supreme Court.

Vioxx was pulled from the market Sept. 30, 2004, because it doubled risks of heart attack, stroke and death. That day alone, stockholders lost a collective $28 billion.

Consumers have the right to sue as a group over advertising they believe misled them into buying products, a divided state Supreme Court ruled Monday in reinstating a massive suit against the tobacco industry.

The 4-3 decision rejected business arguments that, if accepted, would have virtually prohibited class-action suits for false advertising by requiring proof that every plaintiff - millions of them, in some cases - had seen an allegedly deceptive ad and relied on it to make a purchase. The court majority said that evidence is required only for the single plaintiff or small group that represents the entire class.

"This gives the consumers rights to protect themselves from fraudulent advertising," said Mark Robinson, a lawyer for the smokers who sued tobacco companies in 1997.

The ruling could make California "the class-action capital of the country," retorted William Stern, a lawyer for business organizations and a co-author of Proposition 64, a 2004 ballot measure at the heart of the case.

The suit accused the companies of waging a long advertising campaign that concealed cigarettes' addictive and harmful effects. Unlike individual suits over illnesses allegedly caused by tobacco company deception, the current suit seeks reimbursement of money spent by every Californian who bought cigarettes during the period covered by the case: June 10, 1993, to April 23, 2001.

The case was filed under California's unfair-competition law, a far-reaching statute that lets private citizens sue on behalf of the general public over illegal business practices, including deceptive advertising. The law was narrowed by the business-sponsored Prop. 64, which requires a plaintiff to show that he or she had actually been harmed by the business practice.

Prop. 64 did not say, however, how the new requirement would affect class actions, in which an individual or a small group sues on behalf of consumers in the same circumstances. The crucial question Monday was whether every member of the class must show harm from the challenged business practice, a virtual impossibility in most cases.