Justia Consumer Law Opinion Summaries

A black-owned construction company was not invited to bid as general contractor on a major Boston public housing redevelopment project after participating in pre-construction work. Years earlier, the developer had called the company’s president to discuss possible involvement, but the parties disputed what promises, if any, were made during that conversation. The construction company performed pre-construction work and was later selected as general contractor for the first phase (Camden), but after performance and communication issues arose during that project, the developer chose a different, white-owned company for the second phase (Lenox). The construction company did not protest at the time but later sued, alleging breach of contract, quasi-contract, violation of Massachusetts consumer protection law, and racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.The matter was first brought in Massachusetts state court, then removed to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts based on federal question jurisdiction. After discovery, the developer moved for summary judgment. The District Court granted summary judgment for the developer, finding no enforceable contract or promise had been made regarding the Lenox phase, that the quasi-contract and Chapter 93A claims failed as derivative, and that there was insufficient evidence of racial discrimination.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision. The First Circuit held that the summary judgment record did not contain evidence from which a reasonable jury could find an enforceable implied-in-fact contract or a promise sufficient for promissory estoppel. It further held that the plaintiff failed to create a triable issue of fact regarding pretext or discriminatory intent under § 1981, given the legitimate business reasons cited for the company’s exclusion. Thus, summary judgment on all claims was proper. View "John B. Cruz Construction Co. v. Beacon Communities Corp." on Justia Law

After receiving a letter from a debt collector that she believed was misleading and threatening, an individual felt confused and feared potential legal action. She consulted an attorney and then initiated a putative class action lawsuit, seeking damages for herself and similarly situated Wisconsin consumers under both federal and state consumer protection statutes. The alleged violation centered on the misleading nature of the debt collection letter and its implications regarding possible litigation. After some discovery, she elected to pursue monetary damages for a putative class under the Wisconsin Consumer Act and sent the debt collector a statutory notice and demand.In response, the debt collector offered the individual actual damages and the maximum statutory penalty, and promised to cease sending similar collection letters, offering this as “an appropriate remedy.” The individual rejected the offer and moved for class certification. The Milwaukee County Circuit Court granted class certification, reasoning that the statutory provision required an appropriate remedy to be offered to the whole class, not just the named plaintiff. The court concluded that allowing a defendant to “pick off” the class representative would undermine the purpose of class actions under the Wisconsin Consumer Act. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed, focusing on the public policy interests underlying class actions.The Supreme Court of Wisconsin reviewed the case. The court held that under Wis. Stat. § 426.110(4)(c), when a customer initiates a class action for damages, the statute requires that an appropriate remedy be given to the party bringing suit—not the putative class—within 30 days after notice. If the party plaintiff receives or is promised an appropriate remedy, a class action for damages cannot be maintained. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals and remanded for further proceedings. View "Gudex v. Franklin Collection Service, Inc." on Justia Law

Centron Services, Inc., a debt collector, brought suit against Christopher and Alyson Hollewijn to recover on five separate medical debt accounts assigned to Centron by three different medical providers for services rendered between December 2020 and March 2022. The Hollewijns received billing statements from the providers, with one account in particular involving Bozeman Health and a hospital bill for services rendered on November 4, 2021. After insurance paid a portion of the bill and applied a unilateral “provider discount,” Bozeman Health billed the Hollewijns for the remaining balance. The Hollewijns, through their health plan, disputed the charge in writing 93 days after the first billing statement.The Hollewijns moved for summary judgment in the Montana Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, focusing only on the Bozeman Health account for November 4, 2021. The District Court granted summary judgment in their favor and dismissed the entire suit, finding that Centron could not establish an account stated as a matter of law. The court determined that the Hollewijns’ written objection to the bill was timely, defeating Centron’s claim.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana held that the District Court erred in dismissing all five accounts when only one was addressed in the Hollewijns’ motion, as no evidentiary or legal showing was made for the other four. The Supreme Court also found that whether the Hollewijns’ 93-day delay in objecting to the Bozeman Health bill was unreasonable presented a genuine issue of material fact for the jury, not an issue to be resolved by summary judgment. The Supreme Court reversed the District Court’s order and remanded for further proceedings. View "Centron v. Hollewijn" on Justia Law

Two Ohio homeowners discovered that their personal information, including their names, addresses, and property details, appeared in paid reports on a real estate research website operated by a company. The website allows users to search for property information by address or owner name and provides one free report per user, with additional reports available for purchase. The homeowners, without having consented to the use of their information, filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of similarly situated individuals, alleging that the company violated their rights of publicity under both Ohio statute and common law by using their identities for commercial gain.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio reviewed the case after the company moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The district court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice, finding that the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged that their identities possessed independent commercial value—a necessary element of a right of publicity claim under Ohio law.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit conducted a de novo review. It affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that the plaintiffs failed to plead facts showing that their names or identities had any commercial value, as required by both Ohio’s statutory and common law right of publicity. The court reasoned that simply being used in a commercial context does not satisfy the commercial value requirement, relying on both prior circuit precedent and Ohio state court decisions. The court also declined to certify a question of law to the Ohio Supreme Court, concluding that Ohio law on this issue was sufficiently settled. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "LaFleur v. Yardi Systems, Inc." on Justia Law

Bradford entered into a service agreement with a Texas-based pest control company, Sovereign Pest Control, and as part of this agreement, provided his cell phone number to the company. Bradford later acknowledged that he gave his number so the company could contact him if needed. During their business relationship, Sovereign Pest made several pre-recorded calls to Bradford’s cell phone, including calls to schedule renewal inspections, after which Bradford scheduled inspections and renewed his service plan multiple times.Bradford initiated a putative class-action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, alleging that Sovereign Pest violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) by sending him unsolicited pre-recorded calls without his “prior express written consent.” The district court granted summary judgment for Sovereign Pest, holding that the calls did not constitute telemarketing and that Bradford had given prior express consent. Bradford appealed, arguing that the calls were telemarketing and that he had not given the required consent.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the summary judgment de novo and affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the TCPA only requires “prior express consent,” which can be either oral or written, for any pre-recorded call to a wireless number, regardless of whether the call is telemarketing or informational. The court found that Bradford had provided prior express consent by voluntarily giving his cell phone number to the company in connection with the service agreement and by his subsequent conduct. It concluded that the statute does not require “prior express written consent” for telemarketing calls and that Bradford’s arguments to the contrary were unavailing. The Fifth Circuit therefore affirmed summary judgment in favor of Sovereign Pest. View "Bradford v. Sovereign Pest" on Justia Law

A Montana limited liability company and its sole member obtained a $450,000 loan secured by real property from a lender affiliated with New York-based entities. The loan documents included a promissory note, guaranty, and deed of trust, all referencing the lender as Axos Bank, though the servicing and assignment of the loan eventually resided with the lender’s subsidiaries. The loan imposed a high annual interest rate, and after the company defaulted, the property was sold. The borrower alleges it paid more than twice the loan amount and asserts that the lender’s arrangement with Axos Bank was a scheme to avoid Montana’s usury laws.The borrowers sued in the Montana Eighteenth Judicial District Court, seeking, among other relief, a declaration that the lender—not Axos Bank—was the true lender and subject to Montana usury law. The lender moved to dismiss and compel arbitration under the arbitration provisions in the loan documents. The District Court considered extrinsic evidence, including the borrower’s declaration, and found that the arbitration provisions conflicted with bold, capitalized jury trial waiver language, resulting in ambiguity. The District Court determined that the borrower had not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived its constitutional right of access to the courts, denied the motion to compel arbitration, and the lender appealed.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the District Court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration de novo. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the loan documents were ambiguous due to conflicting provisions regarding dispute resolution, and that such ambiguity prevented the borrower from giving the required knowing, voluntary, and intelligent consent to arbitrate and waive constitutional rights. As a result, the arbitration provisions were held unenforceable, and the District Court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration was affirmed. View "Bluebird v. World Business Lenders" on Justia Law

A company was certified by the state regulator to operate as both a competitive retail electric and natural gas service provider. After receiving multiple consumer complaints, including allegations of unauthorized enrollments, deceptive sales practices, and improper telemarketing and door-to-door solicitation during a pandemic, the regulator initiated a formal investigation. The investigation uncovered evidence that the company and its vendors engaged in misleading marketing, falsified call recordings, forged consumer signatures, spoofed caller identification to appear as a utility or other trusted source, and failed to maintain required records. The company also solicited customers in violation of specific pandemic-related commission orders. The company argued that it lacked responsibility for vendors’ actions and had relied on the advice of counsel, and it challenged procedural aspects of the investigation.The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio conducted an evidentiary hearing and found the company had committed numerous violations of statutes and commission rules. It rescinded the company’s operating certificates, ordered it to cease operations in Ohio, imposed a $1.44 million forfeiture, and required the company to “rerate” affected consumers, providing restitution for the difference between the company’s rates and the utility’s default rates. The company’s application for rehearing was granted for further consideration but ultimately denied, and the company then appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio.The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the rescission of the company’s operating certificates, holding that the commission provided adequate notice and opportunity for hearing and that the findings of statutory and rule violations were supported by the evidence. However, the court found the commission failed to sufficiently explain the basis for the forfeiture amount, violating statutory requirements for reasoned decision-making. The court also determined the rerating order was unclear as to which consumers were affected. The court reversed the forfeiture and rerating orders and remanded the matter for the commission to clarify and support its decisions. View "In re RPA Energy, Inc." on Justia Law

A married couple who lived in West Virginia refinanced their home loan in 2004. Over the years, they regularly sent their mortgage servicer payments that included both the scheduled monthly amount and additional principal prepayments, combining the two in single checks and clearly indicating when a prepayment was included. The loan servicers, including LoanCare, LLC (which began servicing the loan in 2019), allegedly failed to apply the prepayments before the monthly payments, resulting in the couple being charged excess interest. Despite several requests for correction, LoanCare did not adjust its practices. The couple eventually paid off the loan and sought a refund for the excess interest.The couple filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging that LoanCare violated two provisions of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (the Act): section 46A-2-127(d) and section 46A-2-128. They also asserted claims for unjust enrichment and conversion. The district court dismissed the unjust enrichment and conversion claims, but allowed the statutory claims to proceed. After discovery, LoanCare moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Act required proof of intentional misconduct, and that there was no evidence it acted intentionally.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment for LoanCare, holding that the Act’s provisions at issue required proof of intentional violation, which the couple could not show. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit concluded that the district court erred in requiring intent, holding that the statutory provisions impose strict liability and do not require proof of intent to violate. The appellate court vacated the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Tederick v. Loancare, LLC" on Justia Law

A mother and the Connecticut Fair Housing Center sued a company that provides tenant screening reports, alleging that its practices contributed to the denial of a housing application for the mother’s disabled son. The apartment manager used the defendant’s screening platform to review applicants’ criminal histories, and the son’s application was denied based on a flagged shoplifting charge. The mother later had the charge dismissed. She also sought a copy of her son’s screening report from the defendant, but was told she needed to provide a power of attorney. She instead submitted documentation of her conservatorship, but the defendant rejected it as facially invalid due to a missing court seal.The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut held a bench trial. It found that the Fair Housing Act (FHA) did not apply to the defendant because it was not the decision-maker on housing applications; only the housing provider made those determinations. The district court also found the defendant’s requirement for a valid conservatorship certificate reasonable and not discriminatory toward handicapped individuals. However, the district court found the defendant liable under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) for a period when it insisted on a power of attorney, making it impossible for the mother to obtain her son’s consumer file.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concluded that the Connecticut Fair Housing Center lacked standing because its diversion of resources to address the defendant’s actions did not constitute a concrete injury. The court also held that, although the FHA does not exclude certain defendants, the defendant here was not the proximate cause of the housing denial, and the mother failed to establish a prima facie case of disparate-impact discrimination. Furthermore, because she never provided a facially valid conservatorship certificate, she could not show that the defendant’s documentation requirements prevented her from obtaining the report. The court vacated, affirmed, and reversed in part, dismissing the Center’s claims, affirming no FHA liability, and reversing FCRA liability. View "CFHC v. CoreLogic Rental Prop. Sols." on Justia Law

Wells Fargo initiated a lawsuit to collect credit card debt from a woman identified as Mary Myers (Mary 1) based on a consumer agreement and supporting documentation that included her address, date of birth, and the last four digits of her social security number. The company provided directions for service to the Lawrence County Sheriff, but the deputy mistakenly served a different woman with the same name (Mary 2) at a different address. Mary 2, who was not the debtor, retained counsel and notified Wells Fargo’s attorney of the error, demanding dismissal and reimbursement of legal expenses.After receiving no response from Wells Fargo’s attorney, Mary 2’s counsel filed motions to dismiss and for sanctions under Rule 11 of the South Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure. Wells Fargo’s attorney explained that he had conducted due diligence before filing the complaint and, after reviewing further information, believed he had filed against the correct person. The Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit found that Wells Fargo’s attorney violated Rule 11 by not communicating with Mary 2’s attorney after being informed of the mistaken service and by not rectifying the error. The court dismissed Mary 2 from the lawsuit and ordered Wells Fargo to pay her attorney’s fees as a sanction.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the award of attorney’s fees. It held that Rule 11 sanctions apply only to the filing, signing, or advocacy of documents presented to the court, not to all attorney conduct within litigation. The court concluded that Wells Fargo’s complaint had evidentiary support against Mary 1, and the mistaken service on Mary 2 did not render the pleading sanctionable. Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the award of attorney’s fees, finding that the circuit court abused its discretion by misapplying Rule 11. View "Wells Fargo v. Myers" on Justia Law