Justia Consumer Law Opinion Summaries

Jacqueline Davis filed a lawsuit against BetMGM, LLC, in the Wayne Circuit Court, claiming fraud, conversion, and breach of contract after winning over $3 million on BetMGM's online gambling platform. BetMGM approved her withdrawal of $100,000 but later suspended her account, citing a game malfunction that erroneously credited her winnings. BetMGM refused to remit the remaining winnings, leading Davis to file a complaint with the Michigan Gaming Control Board (MGCB) and subsequently in court.The Wayne Circuit Court granted BetMGM's motion for summary disposition, ruling that the Lawful Internet Gaming Act (LIGA) preempted Davis's claims and that the MGCB had exclusive jurisdiction over online gambling disputes. The court relied on caselaw interpreting the Michigan Gaming Control and Revenue Act (MGCRA) and administrative rules under the LIGA, concluding that the LIGA precluded inconsistent common-law claims. Davis's motion for reconsideration was denied.The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's decision in a split decision. The majority agreed with the lower court's reasoning, while the dissent argued that the MGCB did not have the authority to resolve individual patron disputes and that Davis's claims were not inconsistent with the LIGA. The dissent also noted that the MGCB's role was limited to investigating violations of the LIGA and did not extend to adjudicating disputes between patrons and licensees.The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that the LIGA did not abrogate common-law claims of fraud, conversion, and breach of contract. The court clarified that the correct principle to apply was abrogation, not preemption, and found no clear legislative intent to abrogate these common-law claims. The court also determined that Davis's claims were not inconsistent with the LIGA, as the MGCB did not have the authority to resolve such disputes. The case was remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings. View "Davis v. BetMGM, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Tidrick purchased a vehicle from FCA US LLC (FCA) and experienced transmission issues, leading her to request FCA repurchase the vehicle under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. FCA initially declined, prompting Tidrick to file a lawsuit in Orange County Superior Court. The parties eventually settled, with FCA agreeing to repurchase the vehicle, pay restitution, and cover attorney fees and costs. Tidrick sought $82,719.33 in attorney fees and costs, but the trial court awarded her only $15,000, a significant reduction.The Orange County Superior Court, where the case was initially filed, awarded Tidrick $15,000 in attorney fees and costs, applying hourly rates prevailing in Fresno County, where Tidrick resided and purchased the vehicle. The court justified this by referencing Code of Civil Procedure section 395, subdivision (b), which it interpreted as mandating venue in Fresno County. The court also criticized the number of hours billed and the lack of a settlement agreement copy, suggesting the litigation was unnecessarily prolonged.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. It held that the trial court erred in applying Fresno County rates instead of Orange County rates, as venue was proper in Orange County where FCA's principal place of business is located. The appellate court also found that the trial court abused its discretion by not properly applying the lodestar method to calculate attorney fees and failing to specify the amount of costs awarded. The appellate court reversed the trial court's award and remanded the case with directions to recalculate the attorney fees using Orange County rates and to clarify the costs awarded. View "Tidrick v. FCA US LLC" on Justia Law

CPI Security Systems, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Vivint Smart Home, Inc., alleging that Vivint engaged in deceptive practices to lure away CPI’s customers. Vivint sales representatives falsely claimed that Vivint had acquired CPI, that CPI was going out of business, or that Vivint needed to upgrade CPI’s equipment. These tactics led many CPI customers to switch to Vivint, causing significant losses for CPI. A jury found Vivint liable for violating the Lanham Act, the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA), and for committing the common-law torts of unfair competition and tortious interference with contracts. The jury awarded CPI $49.7 million in compensatory damages and $140 million in punitive damages.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina upheld the jury’s verdict. Vivint appealed, raising several issues, including the requirement of CPI’s reliance on false statements for the UDTPA claim, the sufficiency of evidence supporting the damages award, the application of North Carolina’s cap on punitive damages, and the admission of prejudicial evidence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and found no reversible error. The court held that CPI was not required to prove its own reliance on Vivint’s false statements to establish a UDTPA claim, as the claim was based on unfair competition rather than fraud. The court also found that the evidence presented by CPI was sufficient to support the jury’s damages award. Additionally, the court ruled that the district court correctly applied North Carolina’s cap on punitive damages by considering the total compensatory damages awarded. The court further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Vivint’s motion to bifurcate the trial or in its evidentiary rulings. The reassignment of the trial judge post-trial did not warrant a new trial. Consequently, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "CPI Security Systems, Inc. v. Vivint Smart Home, Inc." on Justia Law

Jessica Nelson discovered errors in the informational section of her credit report from Experian, including an incorrect spelling of her maiden name, addresses to her mother’s home and attorney’s office, and a variation of her social security number. She spent time and money attempting to correct these errors by sending letters to Experian, which directed her to contact the furnishers of the information. Despite her efforts, some errors remained uncorrected, and Experian did not inform her of the corrections made.Nelson sued Experian in Alabama state court under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, alleging that Experian failed to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation into her information. Experian removed the case to federal court and sought judgment in its favor. The district court denied Experian’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that Nelson had standing based on her out-of-pocket expenses and time spent correcting the information. However, the district court later granted summary judgment in Experian’s favor on the merits of Nelson’s claim. Nelson appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and focused on whether Nelson had standing under Article III. The court held that spending money and time to correct errors on a credit report that has not been published to a third party or otherwise affected the plaintiff does not satisfy the standing requirements of Article III. The court found that Nelson’s efforts to correct the information were self-imposed and did not constitute a concrete injury. Additionally, the court rejected Nelson’s argument that the errors increased her risk of identity theft, finding it too speculative to constitute an imminent harm.The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Nelson v. Experian Information Solutions Inc." on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, Cynthia Wilson, Erin Angelo, and Nicholas Angelo, filed a class action lawsuit against Centene Management Company, L.L.C., Celtic Insurance Company, Superior HealthPlan, Inc., and Centene Company of Texas, L.P. They alleged that the defendants provided materially inaccurate provider lists for their health insurance plans, causing the plaintiffs and proposed class members to pay inflated premiums. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that the inaccuracies in the provider directories led to overcharges for access to healthcare providers who were not actually available.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas denied class certification, concluding that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they failed to establish an injury-in-fact. The court found that the plaintiffs did not adequately demonstrate that they had reasonable expectations regarding the size of the provider network and that the premiums they paid were inflated due to discrepancies between the promised and actual network sizes. The court also questioned the plaintiffs' expert report, which attempted to show a correlation between network size and premium prices, stating that it only showed correlation, not causation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the district court erred by not considering the appropriate test for determining standing at the class-certification stage. The Fifth Circuit adopted the class-certification approach, which requires only that the named plaintiffs demonstrate individual standing before addressing class certification under Rule 23. The appellate court found that the district court improperly engaged in a merits-based evaluation of the plaintiffs' expert testimony when determining standing. The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's order denying class certification and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Wilson v. Centene Management" on Justia Law

Joshua Lapin, acting pro se, filed a complaint against Zeetogroup, LLC and “John Doe Sender” alleging 46 violations of SDCL 37-24-47, which prohibits misleading, falsified, or unauthorized spam emails. Lapin claimed he received these emails between June 15 and July 25, 2021, at his email address, which he argued was a “South Dakota electronic mail address.” The circuit court dismissed Lapin’s claims on summary judgment, concluding that Lapin was not a “resident of this state” during the time he received the emails and, therefore, could not prove his email address was a “South Dakota electronic mail address” as required by SDCL 37-24-47. Lapin appealed.The Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, Minnehaha County, South Dakota, denied Lapin’s motion for partial summary judgment and granted Zeetogroup’s motion for summary judgment. The court found that Lapin was not a resident of South Dakota when he received the emails because he was traveling internationally as a “digital nomad” and was not physically present in the state. The court also held that SDCL 37-24-41(14) does not impose a durational residency requirement and that Lapin could sue over emails received after he became a physical resident of South Dakota.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed the circuit court’s decision. The court held that the term “resident” in SDCL 37-24-41(14)(c) requires actual residency, not just legal residency or domicile. The court concluded that Lapin’s 30-day stay in an Airbnb in South Dakota and his subsequent travels did not establish him as a resident of South Dakota during the time he received the emails. Therefore, Lapin was not entitled to the protections of SDCL 37-24-47. View "Lapin v. Zeetogroup" on Justia Law

The case involves a class action lawsuit against Matt Martorello for violating civil provisions of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The plaintiffs, a group of Virginia citizens, alleged that Martorello orchestrated a "Rent-A-Tribe" scheme with the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Chippewa Indians to issue high-interest loans that circumvented state usury laws by claiming tribal immunity. The loans were made through tribal entities, Red Rock Tribal Lending, LLC, Big Picture Loans, LLC, and Ascension Technologies. The plaintiffs sought damages under federal civil RICO law.The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the tribal entities from the case due to sovereign immunity but allowed the claims against Martorello to proceed. The court found that Martorello had made material misrepresentations about the lending operations and granted class certification. Martorello's subsequent interlocutory appeals were denied, and the district court eventually granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding them over $43 million in damages.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. Martorello challenged three district court rulings: the denial of his motion to dismiss for failure to join necessary and indispensable parties, the application of Virginia law instead of tribal law, and the rejection of his "mistake of law" defense. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. It held that the tribal entities were not indispensable parties due to their settlement agreement, Virginia law applied to the off-reservation lending activities, and a mistake-of-law defense was irrelevant to the civil RICO claims, which did not require proof of specific mens rea beyond the predicate acts. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in any of its rulings. View "Williams v. Martorello" on Justia Law

Janice Hollabaugh authorized her attorney to request her medical records from a health care provider for a personal injury claim. The provider contracted with MRO Corporation to fulfill the request. MRO sent a "Cancellation Invoice" to Hollabaugh’s attorney, stating that the request was canceled and charged a $22.88 fee for searching for the records, even though no records were produced. Hollabaugh reimbursed her attorney for the fee and subsequently filed a class action lawsuit against MRO, alleging that the fee violated the Confidentiality of Medical Records Act.The Circuit Court for Baltimore County determined that Hollabaugh had standing but concluded that the Act authorized MRO’s fee, leading to the dismissal of the case. The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed the standing decision but also upheld the fee's authorization under the Act. Hollabaugh then petitioned the Supreme Court of Maryland, which granted certiorari to review the case.The Supreme Court of Maryland held that Hollabaugh had standing to sue because she reimbursed her attorney for the fee, creating a reasonable inference of injury. The Court further held that the Confidentiality of Medical Records Act does not permit a health care provider to charge a preparation fee for a search that does not result in the production of any medical records. The Court reasoned that the statutory language and context imply that fees are only authorized for the retrieval and preparation of existing records. Consequently, the Court affirmed the lower court's decision on standing but reversed the decision regarding the fee's authorization, remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Hollabaugh v. MRO Corporation" on Justia Law

Melissa Wanna discovered her profile on MyLife, an information broker, which contained a poor reputation score and references to court records. MyLife offered to provide details or remove the profile for a fee. Believing she lost employment opportunities due to this profile, Wanna filed a class action lawsuit against several Lexis entities, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), and the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), along with several Minnesota state law claims.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed Wanna’s claims, concluding that MyLife was not Lexis’s agent. The court found that the data-licensing agreement between Lexis and MyLife explicitly stated that their relationship was that of independent contractors, not principal and agent. As a result, Wanna’s federal claims, which depended on an agency relationship, failed. The district court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Wanna’s state law claims and dismissed them without prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo and affirmed the dismissal. The appellate court agreed that Wanna’s federal claims required an agency relationship between Lexis and MyLife, which was not established. The court found that MyLife did not have actual or apparent authority to act on Lexis’s behalf, nor did Lexis ratify MyLife’s actions. Additionally, the appellate court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. View "Wanna v. RELX Group, PLC" on Justia Law

Vivos Therapeutics, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Ortho-Tain, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The lawsuit stemmed from communications made by Ortho-Tain’s CEO and attorney to Benco Dental Supply, alleging that Vivos misrepresented Ortho-Tain’s products as its own. Vivos’s amended complaint included claims for false advertising under the Lanham Act, violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, libel per se, slander per se, intentional interference with contractual relations, and a declaratory judgment that Vivos did not violate the Lanham Act.The District Court for the District of Colorado denied Ortho-Tain’s motion to dismiss, which argued that certain claims should be dismissed based on the Colorado litigation privilege. Ortho-Tain appealed the denial, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit previously held that it lacked jurisdiction over the denial of immunity for Neff’s communications due to disputed factual issues. The Tenth Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the district court to consider whether the communications were made in good faith contemplation of litigation.On remand, the district court again denied Ortho-Tain’s motion to dismiss, stating that it would not make a factual determination on whether the communications were made in good faith at the pleading stage. Ortho-Tain appealed this decision, arguing that the district court failed to properly analyze the good faith of the communications.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that it could not review the district court’s denial of immunity because it involved disputed factual issues. Without jurisdiction over the denial of immunity, the Tenth Circuit also declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the remaining interlocutory rulings. View "Vivos Therapeutics. v. Ortho-Tain" on Justia Law