Justia Consumer Law Opinion Summaries

A consumer purchased a pair of leggings from a national retailer’s website at an advertised sale price of $6.00, which was displayed alongside a struck-out “regular price” of $12.50. The consumer believed, based on the website’s representations, that the leggings were normally sold at $12.50 and that the $6.00 price reflected a genuine discount. After purchasing and collecting the leggings, the consumer learned that the “regular price” was rarely charged and alleged that the higher reference price was misleading. She brought a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, claiming that the retailer’s “false discounting” scheme violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA). She alleged three forms of injury: that she would not have purchased the leggings but for the misrepresentation (“purchase price” theory), that she did not receive the benefit of the bargain, and that she paid an inflated price due to artificially increased demand (“price premium” theory).The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), finding that, although deceptive conduct was sufficiently alleged, the consumer failed to allege injury cognizable under the CPA. The court reasoned that she did not claim the leggings were worth less than the $6.00 paid or differed from what was advertised, but only that they were not worth the higher reference price.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found Washington law unclear on whether the consumer’s allegations constituted an injury to “business or property” under the CPA and certified the question to the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. The Washington Supreme Court held that, without more, a consumer who receives and retains a fungible product at the price she agreed to pay, but was influenced by a misrepresentation about price history, does not allege a cognizable injury to business or property under the CPA. The court clarified that subjective disappointment or being misled into believing one obtained a bargain does not amount to an objective economic loss as required by the statute. View "Montes v. SPARC Group LLC" on Justia Law

Several plaintiffs, including a truck driver and employees, alleged that their employers or associated companies collected their biometric data, such as fingerprints or hand geometry, without complying with the requirements of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). Each plaintiff claimed that every instance of data collection constituted a separate violation, resulting in potentially massive statutory damages. Some claims were brought as class actions, raising the possibility of billions in liability for the defendants.In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the district judges addressed whether a 2024 amendment to BIPA Section 20, which clarified that damages should be assessed per person rather than per scan, applied retroactively to cases pending when the amendment was enacted. The district courts determined that the amendment did not apply retroactively and certified this question for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the certified question de novo. The court considered Illinois’s established law of statutory retroactivity, which distinguishes between substantive and procedural (including remedial) changes. The Seventh Circuit held that the BIPA amendment was remedial because it addressed only the scope of available damages and did not alter the underlying substantive obligations or standards of liability. The court reasoned that, under Illinois law, remedial amendments apply to pending cases unless precluded by constitutional concerns, which were not present here.The Seventh Circuit concluded that the 2024 amendment to BIPA Section 20 applies retroactively to all pending cases. The court reversed the district courts’ rulings and remanded the cases for further proceedings consistent with its holding. View "Clay v Union Pacific Railroad Company" on Justia Law

An individual purchased a digital camera from a vendor. Several years after the purchase—and after the expiration of the camera’s one-year express warranty and the four-year implied warranty period—the camera developed a malfunction in its aperture-control mechanism. The buyer, after discovering through online research that others had reported similar issues, claimed that the vendor’s failure to publicly disclose this defect was a deceptive omission. The buyer alleged that, had he known about the defect, he would not have bought the camera. He sought to recover damages based on Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL), asserting that the vendor’s nondisclosure violated the statute’s “catch-all” provision prohibiting fraudulent or deceptive conduct.At the trial level, the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County sustained the vendor's preliminary objection, finding that the buyer had not alleged any pre-purchase interaction or statement from the vendor, nor justifiable reliance on any representation. The buyer appealed. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed but did so for a different reason: it relied on its earlier decision in Romeo v. Pittsburgh Associates, which held that a deceptive omission under the UTPCPL is only actionable if the vendor had an affirmative duty to disclose the defect. The Superior Court concluded that the buyer had not alleged any such duty.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case to determine whether the holding in Romeo remains sound law. The Supreme Court held that, to state a claim under the UTPCPL’s catch-all provision based on an omission, a plaintiff must allege that the vendor had a duty to disclose the omitted information. Because the buyer failed to allege any such duty, he failed to state a claim. The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment. View "Halpern v. Ricoh U.S.A., Inc." on Justia Law

Two Illinois residents obtained online loans of $600 each from a lender operating under the laws of the Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, with interest rates approaching 500% per year. The loan agreements included an arbitration clause, which delegated to the arbitrator all questions including the enforceability and formation of the agreement, specifying that such issues would be determined under “tribal law and applicable federal law.” At the time the loans were issued, the referenced tribal law did not exist.After receiving the loans, the borrowers filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging violations of Illinois consumer-protection statutes and federal laws. The defendants moved to compel arbitration under the terms of the loan agreements. The district court denied the motion, finding that the arbitration and delegation provisions were unenforceable because they effectively forced the plaintiffs to waive their substantive rights under Illinois law, applying the “prospective waiver” doctrine.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial de novo. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that there was no mutual assent to the arbitration and delegation provisions. The court determined that, at the time of contracting, the specified tribal law did not exist, and federal law does not supply substantive contract-formation rules. Because the contract’s governing law provision referred to a body of law that was nonexistent and subject to unilateral creation by the defendants’ affiliate, there was no meeting of the minds as to an essential term. The Seventh Circuit concluded that the absence of mutual assent rendered the arbitration and delegation provisions unenforceable and affirmed the district court’s order denying the motion to compel arbitration. View "Harris v W6LS, Inc." on Justia Law

A dispute arose between two bourbon companies, each owned by African Americans, regarding which could claim to be the first to distill bourbon in Kentucky. Victory Global, operating as Brough Brothers, began by sourcing bourbon from Indiana in 2020 and later opened its own distillery in Louisville, filling its first barrel of Kentucky bourbon at the end of that year. Fresh Bourbon, started by the Edwardses, developed its recipe and, lacking a distillery, began distilling bourbon at Hartfield & Co. in Bourbon County in 2018 with increasing hands-on involvement. Fresh Bourbon sold its Kentucky-made bourbon in 2020 and later opened its own distillery in Lexington in 2022 or 2023. Both companies marketed themselves as African American-owned, but Brough Brothers objected to Fresh Bourbon’s claims of being the first, arguing those statements were false or misleading.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky reviewed the case on summary judgment. Brough Brothers alleged false advertising under the Lanham Act, asserting that Fresh Bourbon’s marketing contained literally false statements about being the first African American distillery or having the first African American master distiller since slavery. The district court found that the contested statements were, at most, misleading rather than literally false, and that Brough Brothers had not introduced evidence that consumers were actually deceived. It also concluded there was no showing of material impact on consumer decisions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Fresh Bourbon, holding that the statements in question were ambiguous and not literally false. The court emphasized that, absent unambiguously false statements, Brough Brothers needed to present evidence of consumer deception, which it failed to do. Thus, Brough Brothers’ claims under the Lanham Act could not survive. The decision of the district court was affirmed. View "Victory Global, LLC v. Fresh Bourbon, LLC" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, who were long-time friends of the defendants, invested significant sums in a biopharmaceutical company controlled by the defendants. The defendants did not disclose that the company was in serious financial distress, under a substantial obligation to a lender, and prohibited from incurring additional debt. The investment was structured through promissory notes, which included false warranties regarding the company’s financial status and claimed the formation of a new entity that never materialized. Instead of funding a new venture, the defendants used the investment to pay off existing company debt. Less than two years later, the company declared bankruptcy, making the notes essentially worthless.The plaintiffs brought claims under federal and Massachusetts securities laws, the Massachusetts consumer protection statute, and for common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The defendants moved to dismiss the action, relying on a forum selection clause in the promissory notes requiring litigation in Delaware courts. The district court granted the motion and dismissed the case without prejudice, concluding that the clause applied to the plaintiffs’ claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The plaintiffs argued that their claims did not “arise out of” the notes and that the forum selection clause was unenforceable as contrary to Massachusetts public policy. The First Circuit rejected both arguments, holding that the claims arose from the notes and that the plaintiffs did not meet the heavy burden required to invalidate the clause on public policy grounds. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal without prejudice, leaving the plaintiffs free to pursue their claims in the contractually designated Delaware courts. View "Manzo v. Wohlstadter" on Justia Law

After Doris and Harold Fasching executed a mortgage with a bank in 1998, their interest in the property passed to their heirs upon their deaths in 2021. Sandra Fiecke-Stifter, one of the heirs, did not make mortgage payments as scheduled in late 2021 and early 2022, resulting in the initiation of nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings by the bank. During this period, she made several partial and full payments, some of which were credited and later refunded by the bank, and received statements with varying amounts due. After the foreclosure process began, Fiecke-Stifter requested a payoff amount from the bank’s attorney, but the amount was never provided. The property was sold at a sheriff’s auction, and Fiecke-Stifter later redeemed it by paying more than the last stated loan balance.Proceedings began in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, where Fiecke-Stifter alleged that the bank violated the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) by refunding previously credited payments and assessing late fees, and that the bank’s attorney violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by proceeding with foreclosure without a present right to possession. The district court dismissed both claims, finding there was no TILA violation because the statute only prohibits delay in crediting payments, not the return of already credited payments, and dismissed the FDCPA claim after permitting an amendment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the TILA claim, holding that TILA section 1639f(a) does not prohibit a servicer from refunding payments that were initially credited. However, the court vacated the dismissal of the FDCPA claim, determining that whether the alleged failure to provide a reinstatement or payoff amount under Minnesota law equates to the absence of a “present right to possession” is a question best addressed by the district court in the first instance. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the FDCPA claim. View "Fiecke-Stifter v. MidCountry Bank" on Justia Law

Intuit, Inc., the seller of TurboTax tax-preparation software, advertised its “Free Edition” as available at no cost for “simple tax returns.” However, the majority of taxpayers did not qualify due to various exclusions, and those individuals were prompted during the tax preparation process to upgrade to paid products. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) brought an administrative complaint in 2022, alleging that these advertisements were deceptive under Section 5 of the FTC Act. After an initial federal court suit for a preliminary injunction was denied, the FTC pursued the matter through its internal adjudicative process instead.An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that Intuit’s advertisements were likely to mislead a significant minority of consumers. The FTC Commissioners affirmed this decision, issuing a broad cease-and-desist order that barred Intuit from advertising “any goods or services” as free unless it met stringent requirements. This order was not limited to tax-preparation products. Intuit petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for review, asserting, among other arguments, that the FTC’s adjudication of deceptive advertising claims through an ALJ, rather than an Article III court, was unconstitutional.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that deceptive advertising claims under Section 5 of the FTC Act are akin to traditional actions at law or equity, such as fraud and deceit, and thus involve private rights. According to recent Supreme Court precedent in SEC v. Jarkesy, such claims must be adjudicated in Article III courts, not by agency ALJs. The Fifth Circuit granted Intuit’s petition, vacated the FTC’s order, and remanded the case to the agency for further proceedings consistent with its holding. View "Intuit v. Federal Trade Commission" on Justia Law

The plaintiff obtained a mortgage in 2007 and later fell behind on payments, leading to a repayment agreement. In 2013, servicing of the loan transferred to new entities, and in 2016 the plaintiff filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, triggering an automatic stay against debt collection efforts. During bankruptcy, the mortgage servicers sent monthly account statements, payoff statements (at the plaintiff’s request), and 1098 tax forms. Each document contained clear disclaimers indicating they were not attempts to collect a debt from someone in bankruptcy. The plaintiff alleged that these communications amounted to prohibited debt collection and included inaccurate calculations, asserting violations of both federal and state consumer protection laws.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland first granted summary judgment to the servicers on federal claims, determining the documents were purely informational and not debt collection efforts. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, and dismissed those claims without prejudice. The plaintiff appealed, contesting the district court’s findings regarding the nature of the communications and the dismissal of his state law claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment decisions de novo. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s rulings, holding that none of the communications constituted attempts to collect a debt under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, nor did they violate the bankruptcy stay. The court found the disclaimers in the documents clear and unequivocal, and noted that payoff statements were sent only at the plaintiff’s request. Because federal claims were properly dismissed, the appellate court upheld the district court’s decision to dismiss the state law claims for lack of jurisdiction. View "Palazzo v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC" on Justia Law

A group of Carteret County property owners challenged the county’s policy of charging waste disposal fees. The county does not provide direct trash or recycling collection services but instead offers access to waste disposal sites and a landfill. The county funded these facilities by charging fees to property owners, including both those who potentially used the county sites and those who hired private waste collection services. The plaintiffs argued that the county unlawfully charged these fees to property owners who never used the county sites or who had private waste collection, and also that the total fees collected exceeded the cost of operating the facilities, in violation of state law.Following extensive discovery, the Superior Court in Carteret County considered plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The court rejected one proposed class, finding that determining whether each property owner actually used a county site would require individualized inquiries that would predominate over common issues. However, the court certified three other classes: those allegedly charged fees despite using private waste collection services, and those asserting that the county collected fees beyond its actual operating costs. The county appealed the class certification order directly to the Supreme Court of North Carolina. The plaintiffs did not cross-appeal the denial of the first class.The Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed the Superior Court’s class certification order. The Court held that it is feasible to ascertain class members who used private waste collection services by relying on the customer lists from the limited number of providers in the county. The Court also determined that issues of predominance and superiority did not bar class certification and that any future developments could be addressed through modification or decertification of the class. Thus, the trial court’s order was affirmed. View "Armistead v. County of Carteret" on Justia Law