Justia Consumer Law Opinion Summaries

Two former tenants sued the owner and manager of a residential apartment complex, alleging that they were charged unlawful rental application fees and excessive lock change fees, in violation of the Massachusetts security deposit statute and consumer protection laws. They sought to represent a statewide class of similarly situated tenants. After contentious discovery, the Superior Court sanctioned the defendants, precluding them from contesting certain liability facts. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the security deposit claims but denied summary judgment on the consumer protection claims. Before trial, the parties reached a proposed class action settlement that established a fund for class members, with unclaimed funds to be distributed partly to charities and partly returned to the defendants.The Superior Court, after scrutiny and required revisions, approved the settlement. The court capped the amount of unclaimed funds that could revert to the defendants and required that a portion go to designated charities. However, the Massachusetts IOLTA Committee, a nonparty potentially entitled to notice under Mass. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(3), was not notified prior to settlement approval. After final approval and claims processing, the committee received notice for the first time and objected to the final distribution of unclaimed funds, arguing that the lack of timely notice violated the rule and that final judgment should be set aside. The motion judge agreed there was a violation but declined to vacate the settlement, finding no prejudice.On direct appellate review, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the IOLTA Committee had standing to appeal the denial of its procedural right to notice and an opportunity to be heard on the disposition of residual funds, but lacked standing to challenge the overall fairness or structure of the settlement. Assuming a violation of the rule occurred, the Court found no prejudice because the committee ultimately received the opportunity to be heard before judgment entered. The judgment was affirmed. View "Ortins v. Lincoln Property Company" on Justia Law

Meta Platforms, Inc. and Instagram, LLC were sued by the Commonwealth for allegedly engaging in unfair business practices by designing the Instagram platform to encourage compulsive use among children, misleading the public about the platform's safety, and creating a public nuisance through these practices. The Commonwealth argued that Meta intentionally exploited young users’ vulnerabilities through specific design features, made deceptive statements regarding safety, and failed to effectively prevent underage users from accessing the platform despite public claims to the contrary.The case originated in the Massachusetts Superior Court. There, Meta moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) provided them with immunity from the Commonwealth’s claims. The judge denied Meta's motion, concluding that Section 230 did not bar the claims because the alleged harms stemmed from Meta’s own conduct and speech, rather than from third-party content. Meta then sought interlocutory review, claiming an immediate right to appeal under the doctrine of present execution due to the asserted immunity from suit.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts granted direct appellate review. The court held that the doctrine of present execution allowed an interlocutory appeal regarding Section 230 immunity because the statute confers immunity from suit, not merely from liability. On the merits, the court found that Section 230(c)(1) did not bar the Commonwealth’s claims at this preliminary stage. The court reasoned that the claims were based on Meta’s own design choices and misrepresentations, not on holding Meta liable as a publisher of third-party information. The court therefore affirmed the Superior Court’s denial of Meta’s motion to dismiss as to Section 230(c)(1). View "Commonwealth v. Meta Platforms, Inc." on Justia Law

An assisted living residence operated by the defendant charged new residents a one-time “community fee” upon admission. The agreement stated that this fee was intended to cover upfront staff administrative costs, the resident’s initial service coordination plan, move-in assistance, and to establish a reserve for building improvements. The plaintiff, acting as executor of a former resident’s estate and representing a class, alleged that this community fee violated the Massachusetts security deposit statute, which limits the types of upfront fees a landlord may charge tenants. The complaint further claimed that charging the fee was an unfair and deceptive practice under state consumer protection law.The Superior Court initially dismissed the case, finding that the security deposit statute did not apply to assisted living residences, which are governed by their own regulatory scheme. On appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts previously held in a related decision that the statute does apply to such residences when acting as landlords, but does not prohibit upfront fees for services unique to assisted living facilities. The court remanded the case for further factual development to determine whether the community fee corresponded to such services. After discovery and class certification, both parties moved for summary judgment. The Superior Court judge ruled for the plaintiffs, finding that the community fees were not used solely for allowable services because they were deposited into a general account used for various expenses, including non-allowable capital improvements.On direct appellate review, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reversed. The court held that the defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because uncontradicted evidence showed that the community fees corresponded to costs for assisted living-specific intake services that exceeded the amount of the fees collected. The court emphasized that the statute does not require the fees to be segregated or tracked dollar-for-dollar, and ordered judgment in favor of the defendant. View "Ryan v. Mary Ann Morse Healthcare Corp." on Justia Law

A commercial landlord leased property in downtown Boston to a restaurant operator. As part of their lease agreement, the landlord sold the restaurant a liquor license for one dollar, with the understanding that the license would be transferred back to the landlord for one dollar at the end of the lease. The lease included a provision prohibiting the restaurant from pledging the liquor license as collateral for any loan without the landlord’s written consent. Despite this, before the lease ended, the restaurant pledged the license to its principal as collateral for a loan. When the landlord discovered this, it terminated the lease and demanded the return of the license.The landlord and its related entities filed suit in the Massachusetts Superior Court, alleging breach of contract, unfair or deceptive business practices under General Laws c. 93A, and conversion. The Superior Court granted partial summary judgment for the landlord on the contract claims, finding the anti-pledge provision enforceable and the pledge a default. After a bench trial, the court found for the landlord on the c. 93A and conversion claims, awarding treble damages, attorney's fees, and costs. The defendants appealed these decisions.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case after transferring it from the Appeals Court. The Supreme Judicial Court held that the anti-pledge provision did not violate public policy or state law and was therefore enforceable. The court affirmed that the principal’s conduct in falsely affirming to regulatory authorities that the pledge did not violate any agreements constituted willful and knowing unfair or deceptive conduct under c. 93A. However, while the court affirmed the breach of contract claim, it reversed the conversion judgment, finding that the landlord did not have actual or immediate right to possession of the license at the relevant time. The award of attorney's fees and costs was affirmed. View "Nicosia v. Burns, LLC" on Justia Law

Tody's Service, Inc. (Tody's), a towing company, billed Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty) a six-figure storage fee after towing and storing a vehicle involved in a fatal crash at the direction of the police. The vehicle, insured by Liberty, was held as evidence for nearly three years. After obtaining the vehicle's title, Liberty refused to pay the accrued storage charges, leading Tody's to sue Liberty to recover those fees.In the Superior Court, a judge granted summary judgment in favor of Liberty on all of Tody's claims, which included unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel, and failure to pay storage fees under G. L. c. 159B, § 6B. The judge found no evidence of unjust enrichment, ruled that § 6B does not provide a private right of action, and concluded that Tody's failed to demonstrate any actionable promise or reasonable reliance to support promissory estoppel.The Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case and held that Liberty was not unjustly enriched as a matter of law, as there was no measurable benefit conferred on Liberty by Tody's storage of the vehicle. The court also found no evidence of reliance sufficient to support promissory estoppel, as Tody's stored the vehicle in response to a police directive, not in reliance on any promise by Liberty. Additionally, the court held that § 6B does not create a private right of action against a vehicle owner. Consequently, the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment in Liberty's favor. View "Tody's Service, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the lease of a commercial property that has lasted nearly eight years. The plaintiff brought claims against the defendants for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and a violation of G. L. c. 93A. The plaintiff prevailed at trial and was awarded a monetary judgment of over $20 million. The defendants paid the full amount of the judgment but notified the plaintiff that they intended to exercise their appellate rights.The Superior Court initially handled the case, and the plaintiff prevailed. The defendants appealed, and the Appeals Court affirmed the judgment. The defendants then sought further appellate review, which the Supreme Judicial Court granted, limited to issues related to postjudgment interest.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and held that the exercise of appellate rights does not constitute a condition on the payment of a judgment. Therefore, the judgment was fully satisfied when it was paid in full, and the accrual of postjudgment interest halted upon payment. The court concluded that postjudgment interest is meant to compensate the prevailing party for the loss of the use of money when damages are not paid on time, not to punish or discourage appeals. The court reversed the portion of the lower court's order that allowed for the accrual of postjudgment interest after the defendants' payment in full. View "H1 Lincoln, Inc. v. South Washington Street, LLC" on Justia Law

A Braintree tobacco compliance officer observed an open container of Jazz brand "Black & Mild" cigars on display behind the cash register of a convenience store. The Board of Health of Braintree found that the store violated state and local tobacco laws by offering a flavored tobacco product for sale and imposed a $1,000 fine. The store argued that it did not intend to sell the product and that its point-of-sale system would have prevented the sale. The store also contended that the board acted outside its authority in imposing the fine and that the proceedings were procedurally defective.The Superior Court reviewed the case and upheld the board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the board's conclusion that the store offered the cigars for sale. The court also determined that the board had the authority to impose the fine administratively and that no procedural irregularities fatally marred the board's actions. The store appealed the decision.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's judgment. The court held that the store's placement and display of the cigars supported the board's finding that the product was being offered for sale. The court also concluded that the legislative and regulatory scheme governing the sale of tobacco products in Massachusetts permits local boards of health to enforce the regulations and impose mandatory penalties. The court found no procedural deficiencies that would invalidate the board's actions. View "Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Board of Health of Braintree" on Justia Law

The case involves an appeal from a wrongful death action brought by Joni Babaletos, the personal representative of her late husband Thomas Babaletos, against Demoulas Super Markets, Inc., Philip Morris USA Inc., and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. Babaletos claimed that the cigarettes produced and sold by the defendants caused her husband's death. She brought claims for breach of warranty in design, negligence in design and marketing, fraud, civil conspiracy, and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in violation of G. L. c. 93A, § 9. The jury found for the defendants on the four claims presented to them, and the trial judge subsequently found no liability with respect to the c. 93A claim.On appeal, Babaletos argued that the trial judge's imposition of time limits for the presentation of evidence forced her to omit essential evidence. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that Babaletos failed to demonstrate either an abuse of discretion by the trial judge or how she was prejudiced by the imposition of time limits. The court noted that the trial judge had repeatedly offered to extend scheduled half days to full days should the need arise during trial, but Babaletos made no such requests as the trial progressed. As such, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court also provided guidance for trial judges who believe that setting time limits for the presentation of evidence would be prudent in a particular case. View "Babaletos v. Demoulas Super Markets, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court held that, under the circumstances of the underlying case, the Graves Amendment, 49 U.S.C. 30106, protected an automobile dealership from being held vicariously liable for the tortious conduct of the driver of its courtesy vehicle.An automobile dealership based in New Jersey provided a courtesy vehicle to a customer while it serviced the customer's vehicle in its automobile service center. Contrary to the terms of the courtesy vehicle agreements, the customer drove the vehicle beyond the permitted radius of travel and into the Commonwealth, where the vehicle struck one of the plaintiffs, causing serious injuries. Plaintiffs brought a negligence action against the dealership and the customer. The superior court granted summary judgment for Defendants, concluding that the dealership, as the owner of the courtesy vehicle, was presumptively vicariously liable for the injuries caused by the customer's wife. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment for the dealership and vacated the judgment for the customer, holding (1) the Graves Amendment protected the dealership from liability in this case; and (2) there was a dispute of material fact as to the negligent entrustment claim against the customer. View "Garcia v. Steele" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of a superior court judge denying the special motion to dismiss under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, 59H, the anti-SLAPP statute, filed by Exxon Mobil Corporation in this civil enforcement action brought by the Attorney General, holding that the anti-SLAPP statute does not apply to civil enforcement actions by the Attorney General.The Attorney General brought this action against Exxon Mobil for various alleged violations of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A based on the company's communications regarding the impact of climate change with investors and consumers. Exxon Mobil filed an anti-SLAPP motion, asserting that the action was motivated by its "petitioning" activity. The superior court judge denied the motion on the ground that at least some of the activity alleged in the complaint was not "petitioning" under the statute. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed on an alternate ground, holding that Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, 59H does not apply to civil enforcement actions brought by the Attorney General. View "Commonwealth v. Exxon Mobil Corp." on Justia Law