Justia Consumer Law Opinion Summaries

A group of plaintiffs, including a data privacy company serving public officials and several individually named police and correctional officers, alleged that a broad range of defendants, such as data brokers and marketing companies, continued to disclose the home addresses and phone numbers of individuals protected under Daniel’s Law after receiving formal requests to cease disclosure. The data privacy company, acting as an assignee for thousands of covered persons, facilitated these take-down requests. Plaintiffs claimed that, despite notice, defendants failed to comply within the statutory period, exposing individuals to risks such as stalking and threats.After the plaintiffs filed numerous civil actions in New Jersey state court, defendants removed the cases to federal court, where the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, with a judge from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania presiding, consolidated and considered the cases. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing Daniel’s Law was facially unconstitutional, particularly objecting to the apparent lack of a mental state requirement for liability. The district court denied the motions, reasoning that the statute could be interpreted to require at least negligence, not strict liability, for actual damages, to avoid constitutional concerns.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit certified to the Supreme Court of New Jersey the question of whether Daniel’s Law requires a mental state for liability. The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that Daniel’s Law, as currently written, does not require any mental state—such as negligence, knowledge, or recklessness—to impose liability for actual damages under its civil cause of action. The Court based its decision on the statute’s text, legislative history, and the legislature’s omission of a mental state requirement where such language was used elsewhere in the statute. View "Atlas Data Privacy Corp. v. We Inform, LLC" on Justia Law

A neurosurgeon who co-owned a medical practice and several unrelated businesses purchased disability insurance policies through insurance brokers employed by a financial group. The brokers allegedly advised him he would receive maximum benefits if disabled, without disclosing that his other business interests could reduce his benefits. After being diagnosed with a vision condition that prevented him from performing neurosurgery, the plaintiff claimed maximum benefits but received only partial payments because of his unrelated business interests. He filed a complaint asserting, among other claims, that the brokers violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) by failing to obtain sufficient disability insurance.The Superior Court, Law Division, granted the brokers’ motion to dismiss the CFA count, relying on Plemmons v. Blue Chip Insurance Services, Inc., which held insurance brokers are exempt from the CFA as “semi-professionals.” The trial court noted but did not resolve the tension between Plemmons and Shaw v. Shand, which narrowly construed the CFA's “learned professional” exception. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal. The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted leave to appeal the CFA count.The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that insurance brokers, producers, and agents are not exempt from liability under the CFA, neither as “semi-professionals” nor under the “learned professional” exception. The Court found no support for a “semi-professional” exemption in the CFA’s text and determined that licensing or regulation alone does not justify exemption. The Court reversed the Appellate Division’s judgment, vacated the CFA count’s dismissal, and remanded for further proceedings, also inviting legislative clarification on professional exemptions under the CFA. View "Lowe v. Audet" on Justia Law

After defaulting on his credit card debt, the plaintiff’s outstanding balance was sold by the issuing bank to a series of institutional debt buyers. None of these entities were licensed in New Jersey as consumer lenders or sales finance companies at the time they acquired the debt. The last entity in the chain, LVNV Funding LLC, obtained a default judgment against the plaintiff to collect the debt. Subsequently, the plaintiff initiated a separate class action against LVNV and the other assignees, seeking a declaration that the debt purchase was void under the New Jersey Consumer Finance Licensing Act (CFLA) because the buyers lacked the required licenses, and requesting an injunction against further collection efforts.The Superior Court, Law Division, dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice, holding that the CFLA does not provide a private right of action for borrowers to void loan contracts based on alleged licensing violations. While the plaintiff’s appeal was pending, the Appellate Division decided Francavilla v. Absolute Resolutions VI, LLC, which held that the CFLA confers no such private right. Relying on that precedent, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal and denied the plaintiff’s cross-motion to vacate the underlying default judgment.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case to determine whether a borrower may bring a private action under the CFLA to void a loan contract. The Court held that the CFLA does not contain an implied private right of action for borrowers to void loan contracts. The Court reasoned that the legislative history and statutory structure show no intent to permit such private suits, noting that prior statutes expressly granted a private remedy, which was omitted from the CFLA. The voiding provision in the CFLA operates within a penal framework, and absent clear legislative direction, the Court will not infer a private right of action. The judgment of the Appellate Division was affirmed. View "Diana v. LVNV Funding LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs William Pace and Robert Walters leased apartments at Hamilton Cove, a complex in Weehawken, New Jersey, based on advertisements claiming 24/7 security. After moving in, they discovered that the security was not as advertised. They filed a complaint in March 2022, alleging common law fraud and violations of the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), seeking to certify a class of similarly affected tenants. The leases included a class action waiver, which defendants argued should prevent the class action. Plaintiffs contended the leases were unconscionable contracts of adhesion.The trial court denied defendants' motion to dismiss, finding the complaint sufficiently pled fraud. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that class action waivers in contracts without mandatory arbitration provisions are unenforceable as a matter of public policy. The court distinguished this case from AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, which upheld class action waivers in arbitration agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The Appellate Division emphasized New Jersey's public policy favoring class actions for consumer protection.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case and reversed the Appellate Division's decision. The Court held that class action waivers in consumer contracts are not inherently contrary to public policy and can be enforceable unless found to be unconscionable or invalid under general contract principles. The Court found that the class action waiver in the lease agreements was clear and unambiguous, and the leases were not unconscionable. Therefore, the class action waiver was enforceable, and plaintiffs must pursue their claims individually. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Pace v. Hamilton Cove" on Justia Law

The New Jersey Supreme Court evaluated a class-action lawsuit brought by shoppers at the retail clothing store Aéropostale against the store's owner and operator, SPARC Group LLC. The plaintiffs alleged that the store used "illusory discounts," offering items at a discounted rate from an original price that was never actually charged. They claimed this practice violated the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), the Truth in Consumer-Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA), and various common law contract rights.The trial court dismissed the lawsuit, finding that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated an "ascertainable loss," which is a prerequisite for a private cause of action under the CFA. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, contending that the plaintiffs had suffered an ascertainable loss because they received no value for the offered discount.The Supreme Court disagreed with the Appellate Division, ruling that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated an ascertainable loss because they purchased non-defective, conforming goods with no measurable disparity between the product they thought they were buying and what they received. Even though the court found that the store's pricing practices were deceptive and violated the CFA, it held that the plaintiffs' CFA claim failed because they had not demonstrated either a benefit-of-the-bargain loss or an out-of-pocket loss.Since the plaintiffs did not meet the "ascertainable loss" requirement of the CFA, they were also not considered to be "aggrieved consumers" under the TCCWNA, and their common law claims failed. The court reversed the Appellate Division's decision and reinstated the trial court's order dismissing the lawsuit. View "Robey v. SPARC Group, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff William DeSimone and a class of plaintiffs brought a suit against Springpoint Senior Living, Inc. (Springpoint) alleging that the company violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) with regard to representations about its entrance fee refund policy. The plaintiffs sought the return of “all monies received or collected from” them by Springpoint. The New Jersey Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, held that the refund provision in N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.11 is limited in scope, providing relief only to victims of food-related fraud as identified in Chapter 347 and does not extend to all CFA violations. The court explained that the plain meanings of “within” and “declared herein” suggest that N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.11 is limited in application to the provisions of Chapter 347. The court noted that Chapter 347 is not the only conduct-specific supplementary statute to provide additional rights and remedies, including consumer refunds. The court concluded that the allegations were unrelated to misrepresentations of the “identity of food,” hence, plaintiffs are not entitled to a full refund under N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.11. The court reversed and remanded the case back to the trial court. View "DeSimone v. Springpoint Senior Living, Inc" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action on behalf of themselves and “[a]ll consumers to whom [d]efendants, after November 17, 2013, provided an electronically printed receipt” listing the expiration date of the consumer’s credit or debit card in violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACTA). Plaintiffs’ only alleged injury was exposure to an increased risk of identity theft and credit/debit card fraud. The complaint alleged that “there are, at a minimum, thousands (i.e., two thousand or more) of members that comprise the Class.” The trial court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint based on its determination that plaintiffs could not satisfy Rule 4:32-1’s numerosity, predominance, or superiority requirements for class certification. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal as it pertained to the class action claims. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed, finding plaintiffs sufficiently pled the class certification requirements to survive a motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court remanded the matter for class action discovery to be conducted pursuant to Rule 4:32-2(a), so that the trial court could determine whether to certify the class. View "Baskin v. P.C. Richard Son, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Regina Little asserted claims on her own behalf and on behalf of other New Jersey owners and lessees of 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 Kia Sephia vehicles distributed by defendant Kia Motors America, Inc., alleging that those vehicles had a defective brake system. The central question in this appeal was whether the trial court properly permitted plaintiff’s theory of damages based on the cost of brake repairs to be asserted classwide, supported only by aggregate proofs. The jury determined that defendant had breached its express and implied warranties and that the class had sustained damages. The jury found that the class members had suffered $0 in damages due to diminution in value but that each class member had sustained $750 in damages “[f]or repair expenses reasonably incurred as a result of the defendant’s breach of warranty.” The trial court granted defendant’s motion to decertify the class as to the quantum of damages each individual owner suffered. The parties cross-appealed. The Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s post-trial determinations, reinstated the jury’s award for out-of-pocket repair costs based on plaintiff’s aggregate proofs, and remanded for an award of attorneys’ fees. The appellate court held that, notwithstanding the jury’s rejection of plaintiff’s diminution-in-value theory, the trial court should have ordered a new trial on both theories of damages, which it found were not “fairly separable from each another.” Although aggregate proof of damages can be appropriate in some settings, the New Jersey Supreme Court considered such proof improper as presented in this case. The trial court erred when it initially allowed plaintiff to prove class-members’ out-of-pocket costs for brake repairs based on an estimate untethered to the experience of plaintiff’s class. The trial court properly ordered individualized proof of damages on plaintiff’s brake-repair claim based on the actual costs incurred by the class members. Thus, the trial court’s grant of defendant’s motions for a new trial and for partial decertification of the class were a proper exercise of its discretion. View "Little v. Kia Motors America, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant Javier Torres signed a promissory note (Note) secured by a residential mortgage (Mortgage). Torres defaulted on the Note. CitiMortgage, Inc., discovered that it had lost the original Note but had retained a digital copy setting forth its terms. CitiMortgage assigned the Mortgage and its interest in the Note to plaintiff Investors Bank (Investors). In this appeal, the issue presented for the New Jersey Supreme Court's review was whether Investors could enforce the Note. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court: Investors Bank could enforce the note. Relying on two statutes addressing assignments, N.J.S.A. 2A:25-1 and N.J.S.A. 46:9-9, as well as common-law assignment principles, the Court held Investors had the right as an assignee of the Mortgage and transferee of the Note to enforce the Note. The Court construed N.J.S.A. 12A:3-309 to address the rights of CitiMortgage as the possessor of a note or other instrument at the time that the instrument was lost, but not to supplant New Jersey assignment statutes and common law in the setting of this appeal or to preclude an assignee in Investors’ position from asserting its rights according to the Note’s terms. Read together, "N.J.S.A. 12A:3-309, N.J.S.A. 2A:25-1, and N.J.S.A. 46:9-9 clearly authorized the assignment and entitled Investors to enforce its assigned Mortgage and transferred Note." View "Investors Bank v. Torres" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Henry Sanchez filed a class action seeking relief based on the Retail Installment Sales Act, N.J.S.A. 17:16C-1 to -61 (RISA). He contended the “initiation fee” charged in defendant Fitness Factory’s gym membership contract, among other provisions, violated RISA. The trial court dismissed Sanchez’s complaint, finding that RISA did not apply to the contract because it was a contract for services. The Appellate Division affirmed. While acknowledging that RISA applied to some services contracts, the Appellate Division found that RISA applied only to contracts that contained a financing arrangement. The New Jersey Supreme Court determined that by its own terms, RISA applied to services contracts. Further, in the statute as written, there was no requirement that a contract include a financing arrangement to be covered by RISA. Judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Sanchez v. Fitness Factory Edgewater, LLC" on Justia Law