Justia Consumer Law Opinion Summaries

A former patient of a hospital in Bayamón, Puerto Rico, alleged that her personally identifiable and health information was compromised in a ransomware attack that affected over half a million patients. She received a notice letter from the hospital confirming the breach but stating that, although files were accessed and encrypted, there was no indication that patient information had been used by unauthorized persons. Subsequently, she filed a putative class action in federal court, claiming that the breach resulted from the hospital’s failure to properly safeguard patient data. She asserted that this failure exposed her and others to risks such as identity theft, required them to spend time and incur expenses mitigating potential harm, and diminished the value of their information.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, after several rounds of amended complaints and motions, dismissed the claims for lack of Article III standing. The district court found that the plaintiff’s complaint did not plausibly allege that her alleged injury—such as the discovery of a fraudulent cellphone account opened in her name—was traceable to the hospital’s data breach. Attempts to add further allegations or conduct jurisdictional discovery were denied as futile.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed whether the plaintiff had adequately pleaded both an injury in fact and traceability for standing. The court held that, while the complaint sufficiently alleged an injury in fact by describing actual misuse of her information, it failed to plausibly connect that harm to the hospital’s data breach. The court found no specific facts to support a temporal or factual link between the breach and the fraudulent activity. As a result, the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of all claims for lack of standing. View "Santos-Pagan v. Bayamon Medical Center" on Justia Law

Deque Systems Inc., a company specializing in web accessibility software, developed and registered multiple versions of its DevTools and Rules Help Pages products. To access these, users agreed not to copy, reverse-engineer, or otherwise misuse the software or its documentation. In 2021, BrowserStack, a competing firm, sought to develop its own accessibility testing tools. More than 100 BrowserStack employees created accounts with Deque—agreeing to Deque’s terms—and later, BrowserStack released an Accessibility Toolkit, which Deque alleged was developed by unlawfully copying and reverse-engineering DevTools and the Rules Help Pages.Deque filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, claiming copyright infringement, false advertising, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, and sought injunctive relief, damages, and other remedies. During discovery, Deque repeatedly failed to properly disclose its damages calculations and supporting evidence by the deadlines set in the court’s scheduling order. Despite several opportunities to supplement its disclosures and a late attempt to introduce expert testimony, Deque did not timely provide the required information. BrowserStack moved to exclude Deque’s damages evidence and for summary judgment. The district court granted these motions, finding that Deque’s noncompliance with disclosure rules was neither substantially justified nor harmless, and that Deque presented no evidence supporting injunctive or other relief.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Fourth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding all evidence of Deque’s damages under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) due to repeated and unjustified failures to comply with disclosure requirements. The court also held that summary judgment for BrowserStack was warranted because Deque could not establish entitlement to injunctive, declaratory, or monetary relief. View "Deque Systems Inc. v. Browserstack, Inc." on Justia Law

A landlord served a residential tenant with an eviction notice for nonpayment of rent during a period when the governor had ordered a temporary ban on such notices due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The tenant responded by counterclaiming that the landlord violated the Wisconsin Consumer Act (WCA), specifically Wis. Stat. § 427.104(1)(j), which bars attempts to collect a debt under an “agreement to defer payment” when the right to collect does not exist. The tenant also alleged the lease was void under Wis. Stat. § 704.44(10) and Wis. Admin. Code § ATCP 134.08(10) because it permitted eviction for a crime committed in relation to the property but lacked the required notice of domestic abuse protections.The Marathon County Circuit Court dismissed the landlord’s eviction claim since the notice was issued during the moratorium. The court also held that the WCA did not apply to the lease and found the lease was not void under the cited statutes and regulations, concluding that the tenant was not entitled to damages or attorney fees. The tenant’s attorney was denied intervention for attorney fees but was later allowed to intervene to appeal that issue.The Court of Appeals reversed, holding for the first time that a residential lease with monthly rent payments is a “consumer transaction” and an “agreement to defer payment” under the WCA, and that serving the eviction notice violated the Act. The appellate court also found the lease void for omitting the required domestic abuse notice and allowed recovery of double damages and attorney fees.The Supreme Court of Wisconsin reversed the appellate court. It held that a typical residential lease with monthly rent payments is not an “agreement to defer payment” under Wis. Stat. § 427.104, so the WCA does not apply. Even if the lease were void, the tenant showed no pecuniary loss, precluding recovery of damages, costs, or attorney fees under Wis. Stat. § 100.20(5) or § 425.308(1). View "Koble Investments v. Marquardt" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, an Arizona resident, registered her personal cell phone on the national “do not call” registry in 2004. She alleged that a real estate company, Fast Easy Offer, LLC, and related entities, contacted her through at least six phone calls and two text messages in the fall of 2024. The messages asked if she had given up on selling her property. According to the plaintiff, Fast Easy Offer’s business model involves purchasing homes below market value and remarketing them, and if a home is not purchased, the lead is given to a real estate brokerage, Keller Williams Realty Phoenix, with revenues shared. The plaintiff claimed that the purpose of these communications was to solicit the purchase of real estate brokerage services.The plaintiff filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the communications did not qualify as “telephone solicitations” under the Act and that Keller Williams Realty, Inc. was not vicariously liable. The district court granted the motion, dismissing the complaint with prejudice. The court held that the calls and texts were not telephone solicitations because they did not expressly encourage the purchase of services.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. It held that under the TCPA’s definition, and consistent with Chesbro v. Best Buy Stores, L.P., 705 F.3d 913 (9th Cir. 2012), the plaintiff had adequately pleaded that the messages qualified as telephone solicitations. The court concluded that the purpose of initiation of the calls or messages is determinative, and the plaintiff’s allegations about defendants’ intent sufficed. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. View "COFFEY V. FAST EASY OFFER, LLC" on Justia Law

A trucking company conducted background checks on a job applicant, both before and during his employment, using disclosure and authorization forms. The applicant alleged these forms did not comply with the requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), and initiated a class action on behalf of similarly situated job seekers and employees. He asserted that the company obtained background checks without proper, legally compliant disclosures and authorizations, in violation of federal law.The San Mateo County Superior Court initially certified the class for claims under the FCRA. After the Fifth District Court of Appeal decided *Limon v. Circle K Stores Inc.*, which interpreted the FCRA as requiring plaintiffs to show concrete injury for standing in California courts, the defendant moved to decertify the class, arguing the applicant had not identified any actual harm. The Superior Court agreed, finding that the applicant’s confusion and lack of awareness about the background checks did not amount to concrete injury, and decertified the class.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. It held that California courts are not bound by Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which requires concrete injury in federal courts. The Court interpreted the FCRA’s language and legislative history to mean that statutory damages are available for willful violations, even absent proof of actual harm. It found that a statutory violation alone is sufficient to confer standing in California courts for FCRA claims, and that the applicant’s interest in his statutory rights was adequate. The Court of Appeal reversed the Superior Court’s order decertifying the class, holding that proof of actual injury is not required to maintain a class action under the FCRA in California state court. View "Askins v. CRST Expedited, Inc." on Justia Law

The plaintiff purchased a boat that included an engine manufactured and expressly warranted by the defendant. Shortly after purchase, the engine began to overheat, causing the boat to become disabled on several occasions. The plaintiff brought the boat to authorized service facilities multiple times, but the overheating persisted. After repeated failures to repair the issue, it was discovered that a cracked exhaust manifold allowed water to enter the engine. The manufacturer initially declined to authorize warranty repairs, prompting the plaintiff to file a lawsuit under the Song–Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Eleven days later, without knowledge of the lawsuit, the manufacturer agreed to replace the engine at no cost. The plaintiff continued with his lawsuit, asserting that the defendant’s obligation under the Act required replacement of the entire boat or reimbursement of its full purchase price, not just replacement of the engine.The Alameda County Superior Court granted summary judgment for the defendant. The court found that the plaintiff had not provided evidence showing damages beyond the defective engine, which was replaced. There was no evidence that the overheating caused damage to any other part of the boat or that the boat remained prone to overheating following the engine replacement. The plaintiff’s claims related to breach of implied warranties were not pursued on appeal.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the judgment. The court held that the Song–Beverly Act obligates a manufacturer to replace or reimburse only the goods it sold and expressly warranted—not the entire consumer good into which its component is incorporated—when it cannot conform those goods to the warranty after a reasonable number of repair attempts. The court concluded the plaintiff failed to establish damages cognizable under the Act and affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendant. View "Phillips v. Volvo Penta of the Americas" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between a finance company and two individuals who purchased a used vehicle using a retail installment contract containing an arbitration clause. After defaulting on payments, the individuals surrendered the vehicle for repossession, but the resale did not cover the remaining debt. The finance company filed a civil action in the Circuit Court of Jackson County to recover the outstanding balance. The individuals initially responded without counsel, contesting the debt, and later, after several years, obtained legal counsel and filed an amended answer with counterclaims alleging violations of various state and federal laws.Over the course of litigation, the finance company served limited discovery and moved for summary judgment based on unanswered requests for admission. The individuals’ amended answer and counterclaims expanded the complexity of the dispute, seeking damages and equitable relief. Shortly after, the finance company moved to compel arbitration of all claims, relying on the contract’s arbitration clause. The Circuit Court denied the motion, finding that the finance company had waived its right to arbitrate due to substantial litigation activity and the passage of time before asserting arbitration.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the circuit court’s denial de novo, applying state contract principles and the Federal Arbitration Act. The Court held that the finance company did not impliedly waive its contractual arbitration rights, emphasizing that the arbitration clause expressly allowed arbitration to be invoked before or after a lawsuit or counterclaims. The Court concluded that the litigation activity was limited and not inconsistent with the right to arbitrate, especially given the late and substantial expansion of the dispute by the counterclaims. The circuit court’s order was reversed, and the case remanded with instructions to permit arbitration and stay further proceedings pending its outcome. View "Credit Acceptance Corporation v. Stanley" on Justia Law

A Florida attorney was retained by a consumer who was sued in small claims court for an alleged debt. The attorney attempted to resolve the case with the debt collector’s counsel before a scheduled pretrial conference and was told a settlement would be communicated to the court. Relying on this, he did not attend the conference. The court entered a default against the consumer for failure to appear. Despite assurances from opposing counsel that the default would be set aside, and after a settlement agreement was executed, the debt collector moved for a default judgment and the court entered a default final judgment against the consumer. The attorney spent significant time and effort remedying the situation, ultimately securing vacatur of the default judgment. He then brought suit in federal court in his own name, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Florida law, claiming personal injuries such as distress, embarrassment, and lost time.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed the case, finding the attorney lacked statutory standing under both federal and state law because the alleged debt collection activities targeted his client, not him. The district court did not reach the merits of the state law claim because it found no standing.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court held that the attorney had not alleged a concrete injury in fact sufficient to establish Article III standing. The court explained that any harm he experienced was derivative of his client’s injury and did not amount to a cognizable injury for standing purposes. The Eleventh Circuit therefore dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, without reaching the merits of the statutory claims. View "Light v. LVNV Funding, LLC" on Justia Law

Leonard and Pauline Cortellino executed a promissory note and mortgage in 2006 for the purchase of property in Maine. The mortgage, originally granted to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) as nominee for Mortgage Lenders Network USA, Inc. (MLN), was later assigned multiple times, ultimately to Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, as Trustee for Brougham Fund I Trust in 2016. However, MLN filed for bankruptcy in 2007 and ceased operations after the bankruptcy concluded in 2012. Due to deficiencies in prior assignments following the Maine Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in Bank of America, N.A. v. Greenleaf, parties sought to cure the assignment defects. In 2021, a receiver for MLN, appointed by the Delaware Court of Chancery, assigned the Cortellino mortgage to Wilmington Savings, which was recorded in 2022.After the Cortellinos defaulted on their mortgage payments in 2014, Wilmington Savings sent them a notice of default and right to cure in August 2022. Wilmington Savings filed a foreclosure action in the Maine Superior Court (Androscoggin County) in October 2022. Following a trial in October 2024 and post-trial submissions, the Superior Court entered a judgment of foreclosure and sale in April 2025. The court found Wilmington Savings owned the mortgage and denied the Cortellinos’ motion for additional findings. The Cortellinos appealed.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the Superior Court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. The Court held that Wilmington Savings was the rightful owner of the mortgage due to the valid receiver’s assignment, but found that the right-to-cure notice was legally defective. The notice overstated the amount required to cure the default and contained numerical inconsistencies, failing to strictly comply with Maine’s statutory requirements. The Court vacated the judgment and remanded for entry of dismissal. View "Wilmington Savings Fund Society v. Cortellino" on Justia Law

A lessee filed a lawsuit against a vehicle manufacturer and an authorized dealership, alleging that his leased vehicle had multiple defects that could not be repaired after several attempts. The lessee claimed he revoked acceptance of the vehicle due to these defects, but the defendants refused to provide the remedies he sought. Both the lease agreement and the manufacturer’s warranty booklet contained arbitration provisions, including opt-out clauses, and the lessee signed documents confirming receipt of these materials.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. The court found that the defendants did not establish the existence of enforceable arbitration agreements. Specifically, it determined there was insufficient evidence that the dealership, Standard Motor, was doing business as the named lessor in the lease. The court also concluded that the manufacturer, American Honda Motor Co., could not enforce the arbitration provision, and that the warranty booklet’s arbitration agreement was unenforceable due to concerns about consumer assent.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. It held that the defendants met their initial burden by presenting copies of the arbitration agreements and reciting the relevant terms. The court emphasized that the lessee’s own pleadings constituted a judicial admission that Standard Motor was doing business as the named lessor, and the lessee did not dispute the authenticity or existence of the arbitration agreements. The court also found the lessee failed to present evidence disputing the existence of an arbitration agreement in the warranty booklet. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order and remanded with instructions to grant the motion to compel arbitration. View "Kostandian v. American Honda Motor Co." on Justia Law