Justia Consumer Law Opinion Summaries

Metroplex Communications, Inc., which operates several local news outlets in Illinois, earns revenue by selling advertising space. Meta Platforms, Inc., the owner of Facebook, also sells ads and competes for the same local advertisers. Metroplex, representing a putative class of small businesses that compete with Meta for advertisers, alleged that Meta engaged in unlawful, anticompetitive practices by misrepresenting the reach and effectiveness of its Facebook advertisements, thereby drawing advertisers away from other platforms. The suit is based on claims under the Lanham Act and the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, seeking disgorgement of profits Meta allegedly earned through misleading conduct. Although Metroplex had purchased Facebook ads in the past, its lawsuit was brought in its capacity as a competitor, not as an ad purchaser.Meta moved to compel arbitration in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, arguing that Metroplex’s prior ad purchases subjected it to an arbitration clause in Meta’s Commercial Terms. The district court denied the motion, reasoning that Metroplex’s claims arose from its status as a competitor and not from its own ad purchases or contractual relationship as an ad buyer. The court found the claims to be outside the scope of the arbitration clause.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the scope of the arbitration clause de novo, applying Illinois law. The court held that Metroplex’s unfair competition claims were not sufficiently connected to Metroplex’s ad purchases or Meta’s Commercial Terms to fall within the arbitration agreement. The claims centered on alleged anticompetitive conduct and public misrepresentations, unrelated to Metroplex’s own limited use of Meta’s ad services. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of Meta’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration clause did not apply to Metroplex’s claims as a competitor. View "Metroplex Communications, Inc. v Meta Platforms, Inc." on Justia Law

A plaintiff leased a new vehicle from a dealership and soon experienced significant problems, including charging failures, starting difficulties, and an event involving fire risk. Despite attempts at repair by the dealership and authorized facilities, the vehicle remained inoperable. The plaintiff’s lease included an arbitration provision broadly defining disputes to include claims concerning the vehicle’s condition and warranties. The plaintiff sued the vehicle manufacturer under California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act for a range of statutory violations related to the vehicle’s defects and warranty service.The Santa Clara County Superior Court denied the manufacturer’s motion to compel arbitration. The trial court reasoned that the manufacturer could not enforce the arbitration agreement as a third party beneficiary under the rationale of Ford Motor Warranty Cases, because the plaintiff’s statutory claims arose from the manufacturer’s obligations under the Song-Beverly Act, not from the lease itself. The court also rejected the manufacturer’s equitable estoppel argument, and, finding no enforceable arbitration agreement between the parties, declined to address issues of unconscionability or delegation.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the matter. It held that the manufacturer was in fact a third party beneficiary of the arbitration provision, as the lease explicitly defined the manufacturer as a party entitled to enforce arbitration and covered disputes involving the vehicle’s condition and warranties. The court distinguished the California Supreme Court’s decision in Ford Motor Warranty Cases, finding it inapplicable where the manufacturer is named in the lease. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order and remanded the case for the trial court to decide whether the arbitration provision’s delegation clause is unconscionable. The appellate court expressed no opinion on unconscionability, leaving that issue for the trial court. View "Srivastava v. BMW of North America" on Justia Law

The plaintiff financed his home with a VA loan in 2003, qualifying due to his military service. After failing to make payments for at least ten years, the loan was assigned to HSBC Bank USA and serviced by Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC (SLS). HSBC eventually foreclosed on the property in 2022 and sold it to Northsky, LLC. The VA Servicing Guidelines, which were incorporated into the mortgage contract, required HSBC to notify the plaintiff of the default and explore options to cure it. SLS claimed to have mailed multiple payoff statements and a notice of default to the plaintiff, but he asserted he never received these communications.The plaintiff brought suit in Texas state court against HSBC, SLS, and Northsky, alleging violations of federal and Texas law and seeking to set aside the foreclosure sale. HSBC and SLS removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The district court granted partial summary judgment for HSBC and SLS, permitting the plaintiff to proceed on claims for violations of the VA Servicing Guidelines, quiet title, and trespass to try title. At a bench trial, HSBC and SLS presented circumstantial evidence of mailing, relying on business records and testimony from a corporate representative. The district court found this evidence sufficient and, applying the mailbox rule, presumed the plaintiff received the notices, concluding the defendants fulfilled their obligations under the VA Servicing Guidelines.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the appeal, applying a deferential standard to the district court’s factual findings. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court correctly applied the mailbox rule based on the evidence presented and that the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of receipt. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Rummans v. HSBC Bank" on Justia Law

A dispute arose from a vehicle lease agreement, leading Ari Law P.C. to file a Second Amended Complaint in May 2024 against BMW Financial Services NA, LLC and other defendants. Ari Law alleged breach of contract, breach of express and implied warranties, unfair business practices, fraud, and violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The San Mateo County Superior Court sustained BMW FS’s demurrer as to counts 2, 3, and 6 (warranty claims and Rosenthal Act claim) without leave to amend. Despite this, Ari Law included these dismissed counts in a Third Amended Complaint filed in September 2024. BMW FS repeatedly requested Ari Law to withdraw the improper claims, but Ari Law refused. BMW FS then served Ari Law with a motion for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure sections 128.5 and 128.7, initially noticing a hearing for January 17, 2025, and later re-serving and filing the motion with a hearing date of March 18, 2025.The trial court sustained BMW FS’s demurrer to the same counts without leave to amend, and after considering the sanctions motion, imposed monetary sanctions of $29,055 against Ari Law and its counsel. Ari Law challenged the sanctions order, arguing that the notice of motion did not comply with statutory requirements due to differing hearing dates and insufficient time for the safe harbor period. The trial court rejected these procedural objections, finding that Ari Law had adequate notice and opportunity to address the motion, and denied Ari Law’s motion for reconsideration.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. It held that the discrepancy in hearing dates between the served and filed notices did not invalidate the sanctions order, so long as the substance of the motion remained the same and the safe harbor provisions were strictly satisfied. The court affirmed the sanctions order, denied BMW FS’s request for sanctions on appeal, and awarded BMW FS costs. View "Ari Law v. Autonation.com" on Justia Law

Google was accused of violating the privacy rights of users in the United States by continuing to track and store their location data even after users had disabled the “Location History” feature on their devices. The lawsuit, brought as a class action on behalf of approximately 247.7 million individuals, consolidated multiple complaints. The parties ultimately negotiated a settlement that included both injunctive relief—requiring Google to alter its practices—and a $62 million fund. This settlement fund was to cover attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, service awards for class representatives, and administrative expenses. The remaining funds were to be distributed to selected nonprofit organizations with a focus on internet privacy, rather than directly to class members.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, after conducting a fairness hearing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2), overruled objections from certain class members. These objectors argued that it was improper to distribute the settlement fund exclusively through the cy pres doctrine without first attempting a direct distribution to class members. The district court found that a direct distribution was infeasible because the pro rata share for each class member would be minimal (less than 25 cents) and administrative costs would further reduce any recovery. It approved the cy pres distribution, finding the selected nonprofit recipients had a substantial nexus to the class’s privacy interests.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order. The appellate court held that the district court properly considered the relevant factors under amended Rule 23(e), did not improperly presume the fairness of the settlement, and acted within its discretion in approving a cy pres-only monetary distribution where direct payments were deemed infeasible and not verifiable. The court also found the selection of cy pres recipients appropriate and declined to address new constitutional arguments not presented below. The holding is that cy pres-only distributions are permissible in class settlements when direct distribution is infeasible and the selected recipients have a substantial nexus to the interests of the class. View "PATACSIL V. GOOGLE LLC" on Justia Law

An elderly patient, after contracting COVID-19, received remote medical treatment from an out-of-state physician who prescribed multiple medications, including prednisone. Prednisone is known to carry a risk of peptic ulcer disease, especially in older individuals, and the physician did not prescribe mitigating medication to counteract these side effects. The patient subsequently developed a perforated ulcer and died from organ failure. The estate brought suit against the physician for negligence, lack of informed consent, and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA).The estate initially filed the action in Connecticut Superior Court, and the physician removed it to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The physician moved to dismiss, arguing immunity under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) and contending the CUTPA claim was not viable. The District Court dismissed the CUTPA claim but denied the motion to dismiss the negligence and informed consent claims, concluding PREP Act immunity did not apply.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the physician qualified for PREP Act immunity because he was a licensed health professional who prescribed a covered countermeasure (prednisone) for COVID-19, and the prescription had a causal relationship with the patient’s death. The court also held that the CUTPA claim was impermissible because it was based on alleged professional negligence rather than business or entrepreneurial conduct. The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the CUTPA claim, reversed the District Court’s denial of PREP Act immunity, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Waters v. Kory" on Justia Law

Four individuals who were or are patients of a health care system brought a proposed class action against the system, alleging violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) and the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA). They claimed the health care provider installed web tracking technologies, specifically Meta Pixel and Google Analytics, on its various websites, including a public health risk assessment (HRA) site and a password-protected patient portal. According to the plaintiffs, these tools tracked users’ activities, collected their data—including personally identifiable information, health-related communications, and protected health information—and transmitted it to Meta and Google, who then used the data for advertising purposes.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in its entirety. The court found that the proposed subclasses—patients who logged into the patient portal and those who submitted HRA forms—were not ascertainable, that individual issues predominated over common ones, and that a class action was not the superior or manageable method. It reasoned that determining whether the tracking technologies’ transmissions constituted “contents” under CIPA or “medical information” under CMIA would require individualized inquiries into each user’s data. The court also concluded plaintiffs had abandoned their CIPA claim under section 632.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The appellate court held that the HRA form subclass and the CIPA claim for the patient portal subclass met the requirements for class certification, as key liability questions could be resolved with common proof. However, it affirmed the denial of class certification for the CMIA claim for the patient portal subclass and agreed that plaintiffs forfeited their CIPA section 632 claim. The court found class action treatment was superior and manageable for the certified subclasses. View "Doe v. Adventist Health System/West" on Justia Law

Two foreign nationals from the United Kingdom rented vehicles from a car rental company during separate visits to the United States. Each used a third-party website to reserve vehicles and selected a package that included supplemental liability insurance. Upon arriving at the rental location, they signed rental forms and received a “rental jacket” that contained additional terms, including a statement that supplemental liability insurance would be provided via an excess automobile policy and an arbitration clause requiring most disputes to be resolved through arbitration.Later, the customers believed the company did not actually secure the promised insurance policy but intended to pay claims from its own funds. They filed a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, asserting breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and a violation of Florida’s consumer protection law. The District Court dismissed the fraud and statutory claims but allowed the contract claim to proceed. The defendants, Budget and its parent company, reserved their right to arbitrate and pursued discovery. After deposing the plaintiffs, the defendants moved to compel arbitration, arguing the plaintiffs were aware of the arbitration clause when they received the rental jackets.The District Court denied the motion, finding that by litigating into discovery before moving to compel arbitration, the defendants had impliedly waived their right to arbitrate. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the waiver determination de novo. The Third Circuit held that the defendants did not impliedly waive their right to arbitrate. Because factual development was necessary to determine arbitrability under a prior circuit decision, the defendants’ conduct—reserving their arbitration right and moving to compel after depositions—was not inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate. The Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s order and remanded for further proceedings on the motion to compel arbitration. View "Parkin v. Avis Rent a Car System LLC" on Justia Law

Two individuals, one of whom had taken out a substantial mortgage loan in 2007 secured by a deed of trust on her residential property in Washington, D.C., became involved in a foreclosure dispute after defaulting on the loan. Following the default, the original lender’s successor first attempted foreclosure in 2014 but withdrew due to a defective notice of default. The lender then sent a new notice in 2018, which the borrower disputed, claiming the amount owed was incorrect but not contesting the fact of default. In the interim, the borrower transferred a partial interest in the property to a second individual in 2022.The lender’s assignee initiated a judicial foreclosure in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in 2019. Both the borrower and the new co-owner responded with counterclaims: the borrower alleged violations of the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act and common-law fraud, while the co-owner claimed fraudulent misrepresentation. The lender moved to dismiss these counterclaims for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The Superior Court dismissed all counterclaims and later granted summary judgment for the lender, ordering foreclosure. Both individuals appealed after the trial court entered judgment against them.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case. It held that the counterclaims were properly dismissed because the borrower did not sufficiently allege a consumer-merchant relationship or reliance necessary for her claims, and the co-owner’s pleadings lacked the particularity and justifiable reliance required. The appellate court also found no genuine disputes of material fact that would preclude summary judgment on the foreclosure claim, as the lender had the superior interest and the statutory requirements raised by the appellants did not apply to judicial foreclosure. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Superior Court’s decisions in all respects. View "Edwards & Jones v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB" on Justia Law

A real estate investment trust issued shares governed by corporate charter documents that initially paid fixed dividends but were set to convert to floating rates tied to the London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (LIBOR). The charter provided three fallback options if LIBOR became unavailable. When LIBOR was discontinued, the company determined that the third fallback provision—a fixed rate based on the most recent dividend period—would apply. This decision was announced before the shares were set to convert to floating rates, leading to a decrease in the shares' market value.A shareholder filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that the company’s failure to convert to SOFR-based floating rates, as selected by the Federal Reserve under the Adjustable Interest Rate (LIBOR) Act, violated California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The shareholder claimed that a fixed rate could not serve as a valid “benchmark replacement” under the LIBOR Act. The company moved to dismiss, arguing that the fallback provision was a valid benchmark replacement, thus precluding a UCL claim. The district court denied the motion, finding ambiguity in the statute and relying on legislative history suggesting concern over fixed-rate conversions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s order. The Ninth Circuit held that, under the plain text of the LIBOR Act, a “benchmark replacement” may include a fixed dividend rate as provided in the fallback provision, and there is no requirement that it be a floating rate. The court found the fallback provision to be a valid benchmark replacement and concluded that the company’s actions were not “unlawful” or “unfair” under the UCL. The case was remanded for further proceedings on any remaining issues. View "VERTHELYI V. PENNYMAC MORTGAGE INVESTMENT TRUST" on Justia Law