Justia Consumer Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in an action alleging that FCA violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) by making deceptive representations about the safety of certain Jeep vehicles. Plaintiff also appealed the denial of his motion to remand to state court.The Eighth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) where the amount in controversy jurisdictional limit was satisfied after taking into consideration the sum of damages and the amount of potential attorneys' fees. The court held that plaintiff's claim under the MMPA failed where his purchase had no relationship with the alleged misrepresentation regarding the vehicles' safety. In this case, there was no evidence suggesting that either the seller or the buyer was aware of the misrepresentation, nor was the intermediary seller an unwitting conduit for passing on the substance of the misrepresentation. View "Faltermeier v. FCA US LLC" on Justia Law

St. Pierre used New Jersey E-ZPass and agreed to maintain a positive balance in a prepaid account from which highway tolls are automatically deducted. When he failed to maintain a positive balance, E-ZPass assigned his account to a private debt collection agency, which sent St. Pierre a collection letter for $1,200.75. The envelope in which the letter was sent had a glassine window through which was visible St. Pierre’s name and address, a “quick response” code and St. Pierre’s account number. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692a-1692p, prohibits the use of “any language or symbol, other than the debt collector’s address, on any envelope when communicating with a consumer by use of the mails,” in the collection of a “debt,” defined as an “obligation . . . of a consumer to pay money arising out of a transaction in which the money, property, insurance, or services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.” The district court concluded that the matter was not a debt, but a legal obligation in the nature of a tax. The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of St. Pierre’s suit. Violation of section 1692f(8) is a legally cognizable injury that confers standing on St. Pierre but the FDCPA is not implicated where, as here, the bulk, if not all services rendered, are made “without reference to peculiar benefits to particular individuals or property.” View "St. Pierre v. Retrieval Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc." on Justia Law

Tepper took a home equity line of credit with NOVA Bank secured by a mortgage. The Pennsylvania Department of Banking closed the Bank. The FDIC was its receiver. Tepper stopped receiving statements but attempted to remit payments. The FDIC neither cashed nor returned the check. Rather than attempt further payments, Tepper waited for a statement. Months later, the FDIC declared the loan to be in default and sold it, assigning the mortgage, to Amos, an Illinois LLC that is not a lender but only purchases debts for collection. Amos mailed Tepper letters demanding lump-sum payments and sent a notice, containing a higher amount due, stating that it intended to foreclose, then filed a foreclosure action. Amos was not yet registered to do business in Pennsylvania. Tepper requested loan statements and to resolve the default. An Amos officer refused to provide statements and said the Tepper home belonged to Amos. Amos's attorney sent an email attempting to collect an even higher amount. Tepper filed suit under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. The court decided: Amos is a “debt collector” under 15 U.S.C. 1692a(6); the loan is a “debt” (1692a(5)); and Amos violated the Act but was not liable for failing to register. The Third Circuit affirmed that Amos is a debt collector. Whether an entity acquired the debts it collects after they became defaulted does not resolve whether that entity is a debt collector: an entity whose principal purpose is the collection of any debts is a debt collector regardless whether it owns the debts it collects. View "Tepper v. Amos Financial LLC" on Justia Law

Under the removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1447(c), if at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded. The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of a putative class action alleging that Nomax violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), by transmitting twelve advertisements to the Heart Center by fax without including a proper opt-in notice on each advertisement. The court held that Heart Center lacked Article III standing, but that the proper disposition was remand to state court under section 1447(c). Accordingly, the court remanded with instructions to return the case to state court. View "St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. v. Nomax, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Via Varejo in an action brought by Direct Niche under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), seeking to obtain a declaratory judgment that its registration and use of the domain name casasbahia.com was not unlawful under the ACPA. At issue on appeal was whether Via Varejo owned the Casas Bahia service mark in the United States. The court held that Via Varejo owns the Casas Bahia service mark in the United States where it contracted with U.S. companies to provide advertising of their goods on the Casas Bahia website. Furthermore, Via Varejo's marketing director testified to his personal knowledge that the Casas Bahia Website receives millions of visits every year from IP addresses located in the United States. Therefore, the district court's conclusion that the evidence demonstrated sufficient public use in commerce to establish ownership of the mark was not clearly erroneous. View "Direct Niche, LLC v. Via Varejo S/A" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to American Family in an action alleging breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of Minnesota's consumer fraud statutes. The court held that American Family did not breach the contract because nothing in the policy imposed on American Family a contractual obligation to make objectively reasonable or accurate replacement cost estimates; American Family did not negligently misrepresent the replacement cost of plaintiffs home where, regardless of any breach of duty, no genuine dispute existed as to justifiable reliance upon the estimates; and plaintiffs could point to any promise, misrepresentation, or false statement made by American Family, let alone one that they relied upon, justifiably or unjustifiably, in deciding to purchase or renew the policy. View "Nelson v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law

At issue in this consolidated appeal was whether the Maryland Collection Agency Licensing Act (MCALA), as revised by a 2007 departmental bill, was constrained to the original scope of collection agencies seeking consumer claims or whether the revised statutory language required principal actors of Maryland’s mortgage market to obtain a collection agency license.In 2007, the Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation requested a department bill to revise the definition of collection agencies required to obtain the MCALA license. The enacted departmental bill changed MCALA’s definition of “collection agencies” to include a person who engages in the business of “collecting a consumer claim the person owns if the claim was in default when the person acquired it[.]” The circuit courts below dismissed the foreclosure actions at issue in this appeal, concluding that foreign statutory trusts acting as a repository for defaulted mortgage debts were required to obtain a MCALA license before its substitute trustees filed the foreclosure actions. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding that the foreign statutory trusts did not fall under the definition of “collection agencies” that are licensed and regulated by MCALA, and therefore, the foreign statutory trusts were not required to obtain a license under MCALA before the substitute trustees instituted foreclosure proceedings on their behalf. View "Blackstone v. Sharma" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against electronic retailer Newegg.com, alleging claims of false advertising under the (UCL), false advertising law (FAL), and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). Plaintiff contended that Newegg.com used fictitious former price information in its advertisements that mislead customers to believe they were receiving merchandise at a discounted price.The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment sustaining Newegg's demurrer without leave to amend, holding that plaintiff had standing to pursue his claims. In this case, plaintiff satisfied the UCL and FAL's standing requirements by alleging that Newegg advertised that its products were being offered at a discount from their former or original price; these representations were false or misleading; plaintiff saw and relied on the former price representations when purchasing the products; and he would not have purchased the products but for the false former price representations. Because the court concluded that plaintiff adequately alleged an economic injury for purposes of UCL standing, he likewise had standing to pursue his CLRA claim. View "Hansen v. Newegg.com Americas, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs each received a letter from GC, a debt collector, notifying them that their credit-card accounts had been referred for collection. The letters contained the name and address of the original creditor and stated: [I]f you do dispute all or any portion of this debt within 30 days of receiving this letter, we will obtain verification of the debt from our client and send it to you. Or, if within 30 days of receiving this letter you request the name and address of the original creditor, we will provide it to you in the event it differs from our client, Synchrony Bank. Plaintiffs assert that the letters were deficient under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692, in failing to inform Plaintiffs that GC was obligated to provide the additional debt and creditor information only if Plaintiffs disputed their debts in writing. Plaintiffs filed a purported class action. The court determined that GC’s letters created a “substantial” risk that consumers would waive important FDCPA protections by following GC’s deficient instructions, and certified a class of Kentucky and Nevada consumers, rejecting GC’s argument that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 was not satisfied because Plaintiffs had not shown that each class member had standing. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that that the alleged FDCPA violations did not constitute harm sufficiently concrete to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement of standing. Plaintiffs have Article III standing. View "Macy v. GC Services Limited Partnership" on Justia Law

When a debt collector misreports a debt obligation to a consumer that she no longer owes, and requests payment on that debt, the consumer plausibly alleges violations of 15 U.S.C. 1692e and 1692f, notwithstanding the fact that the debt collector advised the consumer of her right to dispute the debt as required by section 1692g, and that the consumer did not exercise that right.     The Second Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's complaint, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when defendant used false representations and unfair practices in seeking payment on an already settled debt. The court held that plaintiff alleged plausible FDCPA claims. In this case, the inclusion of section 1692g notice did not prevent plaintiff from plausibly pleading that, on a least sophisticated consumer standard, defendant's debt communication was misleading and unfair. The court explained that the FDCPA was a strict liability statute, and a consumer was not required to plead mens rea to state plausible FDCPA claims. Instead, a debt collector's intent was relevant as an element of the affirmative defense afforded by section 1692k(c). View "Vangorden v. Second Round, LP" on Justia Law