Justia Consumer Law Opinion Summaries

The case concerns a job applicant who, after accepting an offer of employment as a sales associate at a large retailer, received an investigative consumer report as part of the onboarding process. The applicant was presented with a lengthy disclosure form that identified multiple consumer reporting agencies rather than only the one that provided her report. She alleged that the employer failed to comply with specific requirements under California’s Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA), including not identifying the agency actually conducting the investigation in a standalone document, and including extraneous information. She also claimed other technical violations related to the handling of her report.The Superior Court of San Diego County reviewed the matter after the employee brought suit for ICRAA violations. The employer moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff lacked standing because she did not suffer any concrete injury or adverse employment action resulting from the alleged violations—she was hired and received the report. The trial court agreed, finding that the applicant had not shown injury, and entered judgment for the employer.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. It held that under the plain language of ICRAA, a consumer need only show that a statutory violation occurred to have standing and to recover the statutory sum of $10,000; no further showing of injury or harm is required. The court distinguished California law from federal standards, emphasized relevant legislative history, and declined to follow interpretations requiring proof of concrete injury. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment and directed that summary judgment be vacated. View "Parsonage v. Wal-Mart Associates" on Justia Law

The plaintiff leased and later purchased a 2013 vehicle from the defendant, which subsequently developed engine problems. After experiencing issues like rattling and crunching noises and receiving a safety recall notice, the plaintiff sought repairs and eventually requested that the defendant repurchase the car due to unresolved defects. The defendant did not respond to these repurchase requests.The plaintiff sued for violations under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, breach of warranties, fraud by omission, and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). The Superior Court of San Diego County sustained the defendant’s demurrer to the CLRA claim without leave to amend, citing the plaintiff’s failure to file a required venue affidavit with the complaint. During discovery, the defendant repeatedly objected to producing documents related to engine defects and verified, under penalty of perjury, that no responsive documents existed. The plaintiff challenged the adequacy of the defendant’s document search and later discovered evidence indicating the defendant had produced such documents to a government agency in another matter. The trial court denied the plaintiff’s motions to compel and for terminating sanctions, accepted the defendant’s responses, and excluded key evidence at trial, which left the plaintiff unable to prove fraud.At trial, the jury found that a defect existed but concluded the defendant remedied it, resulting in a defense verdict. The trial court denied the plaintiff’s motions for a new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, focusing on the plaintiff’s delay in discovering withheld documents and awarding costs to the defendant.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reversed and remanded. The court held that the defendant’s discovery misuse denied the plaintiff a fair trial, requiring a new trial and monetary sanctions to compensate for costs and attorney fees. It also directed that the plaintiff be given leave to amend the CLRA claim and vacated the award of prevailing-party costs to the defendant. View "Higginson v. Kia Motors America" on Justia Law

Lea and Samantha Johnson obtained a mortgage loan serviced by Freedom Mortgage Corporation and made regular payments. After filing for bankruptcy in March 2020, they reaffirmed the loan, but were required to pay by mail and instructed to include their loan number with each payment. In April 2020, Lea mailed a cashier’s check for their monthly payment, but did not put the loan number on the check itself. Freedom Mortgage received the check but could not identify the correct account to credit, as the check did not match the payment amount and only listed Samantha’s name, a common name among its customers. As a result, the payment was not credited and the Johnsons’ account was marked past due, which was subsequently reported to credit agencies. After realizing the issue, the Johnsons sent a new check with the loan number and the payment was credited, but their credit reports reflected a late payment.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota found there was no material dispute about the accuracy of Freedom Mortgage’s reporting and granted summary judgment to the defendant. The court determined that the payment was in fact late because the first check did not comply with the required instructions, and therefore the information reported to the credit agencies was accurate.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment order de novo. The court held that Freedom Mortgage’s investigation into the Johnsons’ credit dispute was reasonable given the conclusory nature of the dispute letters. The court also found that the reported late payment was accurate under both the standard and heightened accuracy tests, and declined to adopt a heightened standard of accuracy. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Freedom Mortgage. View "Johnson v. Freedom Mortgage Corp." on Justia Law

The State of Ohio brought a lawsuit in state court against several pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and related entities, alleging they conspired to artificially inflate prescription drug prices in violation of Ohio law. Ohio claimed that the PBMs, acting as intermediaries between drug manufacturers and health plans, negotiated rebates and fees in a manner that increased drug list prices and extracted payments from pharmacies, harming consumers and violating state antitrust and consumer protection statutes. The PBMs provided services to both private clients and federal health plans, including those for federal employees and military personnel.The defendants, Express Scripts and Prime Therapeutics, removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio under the federal officer removal statute, arguing that their negotiations on drug prices were conducted on behalf of both federal and non-federal clients in a unified process subject to federal oversight. Ohio moved to remand the case to state court, asserting that its claims did not target conduct directed by federal officers and disclaimed any challenge to the administration of federal health programs like FEHBA or TRICARE. The district court accepted Ohio’s disclaimer and determined that the complaint did not impose liability for acts under federal direction, granting Ohio’s motion to remand.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the matter de novo. The court held that the PBMs were “persons acting under” federal officers because their negotiations were performed under detailed federal supervision and regulation for federal health plans. The court further found that the complaint related to acts under color of federal office, as the alleged wrongful conduct was inseparable from federally directed negotiations. The court also determined that the PBMs raised colorable federal defenses based on federal preemption. Consequently, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s remand order and remanded the case for further proceedings in federal court. View "Ohio ex rel. Yost v. Ascent Health Services, LLC" on Justia Law

An individual seeking to refinance his mortgage visited a website that offers mortgage information and referrals to affiliated lenders. During three separate visits, he entered personal information and clicked buttons labeled “Calculate” or “Calculate your FREE results.” Immediately below these buttons, the website displayed language in small font stating that clicking would constitute consent to the site’s Terms of Use, which included a mandatory arbitration provision and permission to be contacted by the site or affiliates. The Terms of Use were accessible via a hyperlinked phrase. After using the site, the individual was matched with a particular lender but did not pursue refinancing. Later, he received multiple unwanted calls from the lender and filed a class-action lawsuit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, alleging violations such as calling numbers on the Do Not Call registry.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan initially dismissed the complaint on the merits and denied the lender’s motion to compel arbitration as moot. Upon realizing the arbitration issue should have been decided first, the court reopened the case but found no enforceable agreement to arbitrate existed, denying the motion to compel arbitration. The court also denied reconsideration and allowed the plaintiff to amend his complaint. The lender appealed the denial of arbitration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the denial de novo. It held that, under California law, the website provided reasonably conspicuous notice that clicking the buttons would signify assent to the Terms of Use, including arbitration. The court found that the plaintiff’s conduct objectively manifested acceptance of the offer, forming a binding arbitration agreement. The court also concluded that the agreement was not invalid due to unspecified procedural details and that questions of arbitrability were delegated to the arbitrator. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and remanded for further proceedings. View "Dahdah v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC" on Justia Law

The State of Iowa brought suit against several related corporate entities associated with the TikTok social media platform, alleging violations of the Iowa Consumer Frauds Act. The State claimed that TikTok misrepresented the safety and age-appropriateness of its app by maintaining a “12+” rating on app stores despite the presence of mature and inappropriate content. The app was widely downloaded and used in Iowa, with hundreds of thousands of devices in the state activating it. TikTok entered into terms of service agreements with Iowa users, collected location data, and targeted Iowa-specific advertisements, thereby generating revenue from its Iowa user base.In the Iowa District Court for Polk County, the TikTok entities moved to dismiss the State’s petition on several grounds, including lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court denied the motion, finding that it had personal jurisdiction over the defendants and that the State had properly pleaded a valid claim. The district court also denied the State’s request for a temporary injunction, concluding that irreparable harm had not been shown. The defendants sought interlocutory review solely on the issue of personal jurisdiction, which was granted.Upon review, the Iowa Supreme Court found that the TikTok entities had sufficient minimum contacts with Iowa, having purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of conducting business in the state by entering into ongoing contractual relationships, collecting data, and serving targeted advertisements. The court concluded that the State’s claims “arose out of or related to” these contacts, and that exercising jurisdiction did not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Accordingly, the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. View "State of Iowa, Ex Rel. Attorney General Brenna Bird v. Tiktok, Inc." on Justia Law

Nicholas Giovannelli, a United States Army veteran, was photographed in Afghanistan in 2009. The image appeared on a Department of Defense website and was later downloaded and licensed by Stocktrek Images to Posterazzi, which produced posters featuring Giovannelli’s likeness. These posters were sold online through retailers including Walmart, Pixels, Amazon, and Posterazzi. Giovannelli only learned of the commercial use of his image in 2020, when a friend discovered the posters online. Experiencing renewed PTSD symptoms, Giovannelli sued the companies for violating the Illinois Right of Publicity Act, which prohibits using a person’s identity for commercial purposes without consent.The lawsuits were removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and severed due to misjoinder. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Giovannelli’s claims were barred by the Act’s one-year statute of limitations. Each district judge—Edmond E. Chang, LaShonda A. Hunt, and Jeffrey I. Cummings—granted summary judgment for the defendants, citing Blair v. Nevada Landing Partnership, where the Illinois Appellate Court held that the limitations period starts when the photo is first published, not when the plaintiff discovers the use.Reviewing the case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit applied de novo review. The court held that, under Illinois law and Blair, the single-publication rule governs claims under the Illinois Right of Publicity Act—so the statute of limitations begins at first publication. The court found no basis for applying the discovery rule, and the exception for “hidden, inherently undiscoverable, or inherently unknowable” publications did not apply since the image was publicly accessible. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district courts’ judgments, finding Giovannelli’s claims time-barred. View "Giovannelli v Stocktrek Images, Inc." on Justia Law

Taylor L. Wood, her husband, and her son received medical care from physicians employed by Intermountain Emergency Physicians, PLLC (IEP). The resulting medical debt was assigned to Medical Recovery Services, LLC (MRS) for collection. After Wood’s attorneys alleged violations of state law, the Woods and IEP entered into a settlement that discharged the debt and provided payment to the Woods. Nevertheless, MRS later sued Wood to collect the same debt. Wood responded by counterclaiming and bringing IEP into the case as a third-party defendant, relying on the settlement agreement. MRS dismissed its complaint upon learning of the prior settlement, and all claims were eventually dismissed by the court.After judgment was entered, both sides sought a determination of the prevailing party and an award of attorney fees. The District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, Bingham County, found that Wood was the prevailing party over MRS and ordered MRS to pay Wood’s costs and attorney fees, concluding that MRS’s complaint was frivolous due to lack of proper investigation and communication regarding the settlement. MRS and IEP filed a first motion for reconsideration of the fees order, which was denied. They then filed a second motion for reconsideration, also denied, and subsequently appealed.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed the case. It held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court’s order awarding costs and attorney fees to Wood because MRS and IEP’s notice of appeal from that order was untimely under Idaho Appellate Rule 14(a). The court did have jurisdiction to review the denial of the second motion for reconsideration, but because MRS and IEP failed to provide argument or authority on that issue, they waived it. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of the second motion for reconsideration. View "Medical Recovery Services, LLC v. Wood" on Justia Law

More than one hundred individuals who became tenants at three apartment complexes in Los Angeles applied to rent from the property owners by filling out standard applications and paying $41.50 screening fees. The landlords used these fees to obtain credit and background reports. The plaintiffs alleged that the landlords violated California’s Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA) by failing to disclose the scope of the investigations, the identity of the reporting agencies, the right to inspect information, and by not providing copies of the consumer reports. Three plaintiffs also asserted a claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) based on the same alleged violations.After consolidating the cases, the Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted summary judgment for the defendants, reasoning that none of the plaintiffs had shown actual damages or concrete injury resulting from the alleged ICRAA violations, and thus lacked standing. The court also found that the plaintiffs’ UCL claims failed for similar reasons, as they did not lose money or property due to the alleged conduct.On appeal, the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Three, held that the plaintiffs have standing to pursue their ICRAA claims because the statute provides a $10,000 minimum recovery for violations without requiring proof of actual damages or concrete injury. The court found that the statutory remedy is punitive and serves to deter violations, granting standing based on the violation itself. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the UCL claims, concluding that plaintiffs did not suffer an “injury in fact” or lose money or property as required for UCL standing. The judgment was therefore reversed as to the ICRAA claims, affirmed as to the UCL claims, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Yeh v. Barrington Pacific" on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff purchased a new Hyundai vehicle that experienced repeated mechanical issues, leading to seven repair attempts over 19 months. After the buyer or his wife requested Hyundai repurchase the vehicle, it was involved in a collision and declared a total loss. The wife’s insurer paid her for the vehicle’s loss. The plaintiffs—comprised of the buyer and his wife—then sued Hyundai under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, alleging breach of express warranty, among other claims. After some claims were dismissed, only the express warranty claim proceeded to trial.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County allowed the wife to join as a plaintiff, even after finding she was not the buyer, based on the belief that prior precedent allowed her to proceed. The jury returned a verdict for both plaintiffs, awarding damages and prejudgment interest, but the court reduced the damages by the amount of the insurance payment and adjusted the interest calculation. Both sides filed post-trial motions regarding prejudgment interest and costs, and both appealed aspects of the judgment and cost rulings.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, held that only a “buyer” as defined by the Act has standing to pursue claims under it; since the wife was not a buyer, she lacked standing and should not have been a party. The court also ruled that insurance payouts received after a vehicle is totaled cannot reduce the statutory restitution owed by the manufacturer under the Act. Additionally, the court found that prejudgment interest is available under Civil Code section 3288. The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for recalculation of prejudgment interest and reconsideration of costs. View "Towns v. Hyundai Motor America" on Justia Law