Justia Consumer Law Opinion Summaries

A teacher employed by the Los Angeles Unified School District purchased a variable annuity with an optional Guaranteed Minimum Income Benefit (GMIB) rider from an insurance company in 2010. The GMIB rider, which provided a guaranteed minimum level of payments, was subject to an annual fee that was disclosed both to the purchaser and on a state-maintained website as required by the California Education Code at the time of purchase. In 2018, the insurer ceased offering the GMIB rider to new customers, but permitted existing holders, including the plaintiff, to maintain the rider and continue paying the associated fee. After January 2019, the fee for the GMIB rider was no longer listed on the state-administered website, although the underlying annuity product remained available to new purchasers.The plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, alleging that the insurer’s collection of the GMIB rider fee after it was no longer disclosed on the state website constituted an unlawful business practice under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The plaintiff did not claim to have relied on the website or to have been misled about the fee, but asserted that the insurer was statutorily barred from collecting undisclosed fees. The trial court sustained the insurer’s demurrer, finding that the plaintiff failed to allege reliance necessary for standing under the UCL, and dismissed the action with prejudice when the plaintiff declined to amend the complaint.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, affirmed the dismissal, albeit on different grounds. The court held that the Education Code does not require continued disclosure of fees for optional product features, such as the GMIB rider, after those features are no longer offered to prospective purchasers. As a result, the insurer was not prohibited from collecting the fee from existing holders, and the plaintiff’s UCL claim failed as a matter of law. The court awarded the insurer its costs on appeal. View "Jacobson v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co." on Justia Law

A group of homeowners, all over the age of 65, entered into contracts for energy efficiency improvements to their homes under California's Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program. This program allows local governments to offer financing for such improvements, with repayment made through voluntary special assessments added to the homeowners’ property tax bills. Most local governments contracted private companies to administer these PACE loans. The homeowners alleged that these private administrators failed to comply with consumer protection and lending laws applicable to consumer lenders, such as providing required warnings and avoiding prohibited security interests. They filed suit under the Unfair Competition Law, seeking injunctive relief and restitution, including the return of assessment monies paid and prohibitions on future collection of delinquent assessments unless the assessments were removed from their properties.The San Diego County Superior Court sustained the defendants’ demurrers, concluding that the plaintiffs were required to exhaust administrative tax remedies before pursuing their claims in court. The California Court of Appeal affirmed, reasoning that because PACE assessments are collected as part of property taxes and the relief sought would invalidate those assessments, plaintiffs first needed to pay the assessments and seek administrative relief through the established tax refund procedures.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case to determine whether plaintiffs were required to follow statutory procedures for challenging taxes. The court held that when plaintiffs’ claims effectively seek to invalidate PACE assessments or prevent their future collection, they must first pay the assessments and pursue administrative tax remedies. However, the court also held that plaintiffs are not required to use tax challenge procedures for claims that do not directly or indirectly challenge a tax, such as those solely addressing the administration of the PACE program. The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the case remanded to consider whether plaintiffs should be allowed to amend their complaints to state only non-tax-related claims. View "Morgan v. Ygrene Energy Fund, Inc." on Justia Law

A teacher employed by the Los Angeles Unified School District purchased a variable annuity from Metropolitan Life Insurance Company in 2010, selecting an optional rider that guaranteed a minimum income benefit for an annual fee. At the time of purchase, the fee for this rider was disclosed both directly to her and on a state-maintained website, as required by California Education Code provisions governing vendors of certain retirement investment products to public education employees. In 2018, Met Life stopped offering the optional rider to new customers but continued to charge the annual fee to those, like the plaintiff, who had previously selected it. After January 2019, information about the rider fee was no longer displayed on the state website. The plaintiff continued making investments subject to the rider and paying the associated fee.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County reviewed the plaintiff’s claim under the unfair competition law (UCL), which alleged Met Life unlawfully charged the fee without required public disclosure, regardless of whether the plaintiff had relied on the website or was misled. The court sustained Met Life’s demurrer and dismissed the case with prejudice, reasoning that the plaintiff failed to allege reliance on the lack of disclosure.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, affirmed the judgment but for a different reason. The appellate court held that the Education Code does not require vendors to continue disclosing fees for optional product features that are no longer offered to new customers, even if existing customers still pay those fees. Therefore, Met Life was not prohibited from charging the fee after discontinuing the rider for new enrollees, and the plaintiff’s UCL claim was properly dismissed. View "Jacobson v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The case concerns a dispute that arose after a company, Motiva Performance Engineering, failed to deliver on an agreement to upgrade a vehicle for the plaintiff, resulting in a jury verdict against Motiva for breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and violation of the Unfair Practices Act. The company’s managing member, who was also its attorney, transferred Motiva’s Ferrari to another company he controlled shortly after the verdict and subsequently used the car as collateral for a loan without disclosing this to the court. Additional questionable conduct included failing to disclose or potentially backdating a promissory note and depositing insurance proceeds into his personal account. These acts occurred while the court was overseeing asset proceedings to satisfy the judgment against Motiva.Following these actions, the district court held a hearing and issued a sanctions order against the managing member and his associated entities for what it termed remedial contempt, requiring payment of the underlying judgment and a $50,000 donation to charity. The sanctions order also referenced Rule 1-011 NMRA (Rule 11) violations due to misstatements in court filings. The managing member moved for reconsideration, arguing the evidence did not support remedial contempt, but appealed the order before the motion was decided. The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the sanctions on both inherent powers and Rule 11 grounds, though a dissent questioned the breadth of conduct relied upon under Rule 11.The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico held that the district court erred by imposing punitive contempt sanctions without affording criminal-level due process protections and that such sanctions could not be justified under the court’s inherent powers without those protections. However, the court upheld the sanctions under Rule 11, as the due process requirements for Rule 11 are not equivalent to those for contempt. The holding was limited to willful misstatements made in documents filed with the court. The court affirmed the Court of Appeals in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Butler v. Motiva Performance Engineering, LLC" on Justia Law

Robert Sullivan entered into a contract with Nomad Capitalist USA, LLC for consulting services related to international relocation and financial planning, paying approximately $52,500. The contract was governed by Arizona law and included a forum selection clause requiring disputes to be litigated exclusively in Hong Kong. Andrew Henderson, founder and manager of Nomad, signed the contract on Nomad’s behalf but not in his individual capacity. After the business relationship deteriorated, Sullivan sued both Nomad and Henderson in Arizona, alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and consumer fraud under Arizona’s Consumer Fraud Act. Both Nomad and Henderson sought dismissal based on the forum selection clause.The Superior Court in Maricopa County granted Nomad’s motion to dismiss, finding the forum selection clause applicable to Sullivan’s claims against Nomad. However, it denied Henderson’s motion to dismiss, holding that the clause did not apply to Sullivan’s consumer fraud claim against Henderson as Henderson was not a signatory to the contract. The court dismissed all contract claims against Henderson, leaving only the statutory consumer fraud claim. Henderson petitioned the Arizona Court of Appeals for special action relief, which declined jurisdiction. He then sought review by the Supreme Court of Arizona.The Supreme Court of Arizona considered whether to adopt the “closely related party doctrine” or “alternative estoppel theory” to permit a non-signatory like Henderson to enforce the forum selection clause. The Court declined to adopt either doctrine, emphasizing that contract provisions control and that established doctrines for non-signatories—such as third-party beneficiary or alter ego—are sufficient. It held that, under Arizona law, a non-signatory cannot enforce a forum selection clause unless explicitly included in the contract. The Court affirmed the Superior Court’s ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "HENDERSON v HON. MOSKOWITZ/SULLIVAN" on Justia Law

A California nonprofit organization focused on preventing deceptive environmental claims filed a lawsuit against a manufacturer of feminine hygiene products. The organization alleged that the manufacturer labeled and advertised certain products, including period underwear, pads, and panty liners, as “organic” or “made with organic cotton” in violation of the California Organic Food and Farming Act (COFFA). The complaint stated that these products contained less than the minimum required percentage of certified organic materials and included nonagricultural and nonorganically produced components not permitted under state or federal organic standards.The case was first heard in the Alameda County Superior Court. The manufacturer moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that COFFA applies only to agricultural products, cosmetics, and pet food—not to personal care products such as feminine hygiene items. The Superior Court agreed with the manufacturer and granted judgment on the pleadings, concluding that COFFA did not govern the products in question. The nonprofit timely appealed that decision.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case de novo. The appellate court held that COFFA applies broadly to all products sold as “organic” or containing “organic” materials in California, unless specifically exempted, and that the statute’s plain language encompasses feminine hygiene products. The court found no basis for an implied exception for personal care products and determined that the trial court erred in its interpretation. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment, clarifying that COFFA’s standards and labeling requirements apply to the manufacturer’s products at issue. View "Environmental Democracy Project v. Rael" on Justia Law

A Missouri consumer purchased several containers of coffee that prominently displayed the number of servings each container could make. He claimed these representations were misleading, arguing that following the recommended single-serving brewing method would not produce as many servings as advertised. He filed a lawsuit against the coffee manufacturer and its parent company, alleging violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff sought to represent a class of Missouri consumers who purchased the same products.Multiple similar lawsuits from around the country were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The district court appointed interim class counsel and, at the parties’ suggestion, considered whether to certify a Missouri class before addressing other states. The district court ultimately certified the Missouri class, finding that the plaintiff’s claims were suitable for class treatment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), which requires that common questions predominate over individual ones.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the district court erred in certifying the class. The appellate court determined that individual questions about whether consumers saw, interpreted, or relied upon the product representations would predominate over common questions. The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that all class members suffered harm due to alleged price inflation, reasoning that only those who were actually misled or cared about the representations could have incurred an ascertainable loss under the MMPA. The court also found the unjust enrichment claim similarly unsuited to class treatment because it would require individualized inquiries into whether each transaction was unjust. The Eighth Circuit reversed the class certification order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Sorin v. The Folger Coffee Company" on Justia Law

A consumer purchased a used vehicle from a dealership, with the transaction documented in two contracts: a purchase order and a retail installment sale contract (RISC). The purchase order included an arbitration provision for disputes arising from the purchase or financing of the vehicle, while the RISC detailed the financing terms but did not include an arbitration clause. The RISC contained an assignment clause by which the dealership assigned its interest in "this contract" (the RISC) to a third-party lender, and defined the agreement between the buyer and the assignee as consisting "only" of the RISC and any addenda. The consumer later filed a class action against the lender, alleging improper fees under Maryland law.The Circuit Court for Baltimore City found for the lender, ruling that the purchase order and RISC should be read together as one contract for the purposes of the transaction, and that the arbitration agreement was enforceable against the consumer. The court granted the lender’s motion to compel arbitration. On appeal, the Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed, holding that the consumer was bound by the arbitration provision and that the assignee lender could enforce it, even though the consumer did not receive or sign a separate arbitration agreement.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case, focusing on contract interpretation and the scope of the assignment. The court held that, even if the purchase order’s arbitration provision was binding between the consumer and the dealer, it was not within the scope of the assignment to the lender. The RISC’s assignment language made clear that only the RISC and its addenda, not the purchase order or its arbitration clause, were assigned to the lender. As a result, the Supreme Court of Maryland reversed the judgment of the Appellate Court and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Lyles v. Santander Consumer USA" on Justia Law

Several individuals operated two multi-level marketing businesses, Success by Health and VOZ Travel. Success by Health sold coffee, tea, and nutraceuticals, promising affiliates “financial freedom” through a compensation structure that incentivized recruitment over product sales. VOZ Travel, launched in 2019 to offset losses, purported to sell travel services, but never produced the promised products. Both businesses generated substantial revenues, largely through affiliate recruitment. One of the individuals, James Noland, was already subject to a 2002 permanent injunction prohibiting him and those acting with him from running unlawful multi-level marketing schemes.The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, alleging violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act and related consumer protection rules. The district court granted an ex parte temporary restraining order, followed by a preliminary injunction that froze assets and installed a receiver. Summary judgment was entered for the FTC on some claims, and after an 11-day bench trial, the district court found the defendants liable for operating a pyramid scheme, making material misrepresentations, and violating two consumer protection rules. The court imposed monetary damages, a permanent injunction barring participation in multi-level marketing, and, for some defendants, a civil compensatory sanction for contempt of the 2002 injunction. The defendants appealed only the scope and nature of the relief.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed in all respects. The court held that challenges to the preliminary injunction were moot. It found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s calculation and imposition of a civil compensatory sanction based on net revenues, nor in the award of monetary relief under Section 19 of the FTC Act without the need for prior administrative proceedings. The court also upheld the permanent injunction prohibiting future participation in multi-level marketing, finding it appropriately tailored to the defendants’ conduct. View "FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. NOLAND" on Justia Law

A 2018 data breach at Barracuda Networks exposed protected health information of patients of Zoll Services LLC, a subsidiary of Zoll Medical Corporation. Zoll had contracted with Fusion LLC for data security services, and Fusion in turn relied on Barracuda’s technology. The agreements between these companies included certain liability and indemnification provisions, as well as a right for Barracuda to audit Fusion’s customer contracts. After the breach, Zoll settled a class action brought by its customers whose data was compromised.Following these events, Zoll initiated arbitration against Fusion and filed suit against Barracuda in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Fusion intervened and asserted additional claims against Barracuda. The district court dismissed most claims but allowed Zoll’s equitable indemnification claim and Fusion’s breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims to proceed. After arbitration and settlements, Axis Insurance Company, as assignee and subrogee of Zoll and Fusion, was substituted as plaintiff. Barracuda moved for summary judgment on the remaining claims, which the district court granted.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment rulings de novo. The appellate court held that Axis failed to present evidence of a relationship between Zoll and Barracuda that would support derivative or vicarious liability necessary for equitable indemnification under Massachusetts law. The court found that Fusion did not meet a condition precedent in its contract with Barracuda, and Barracuda had not waived or was estopped from asserting that condition. Further, Axis could not show that Barracuda breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, as no relevant contractual right existed. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Barracuda on all claims. View "Axis Insurance Company v. Barracuda Networks, Inc." on Justia Law