Justia Consumer Law Opinion Summaries

The case revolves around Robert Nightingale, who owed money to National Grid. The company hired two debt collectors who called Nightingale more than twice over several seven-day periods throughout 2017 and 2018. Nightingale sued National Grid and the debt collectors under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, alleging that the calls invaded his privacy and caused him emotional distress. He also sought to certify a class of Massachusetts residents who had experienced similar invasions of privacy due to excessive calls from the defendants.The case was moved to federal district court, which declined to certify the class, stating that it did not meet the predominance requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). The district court also granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that Nightingale had not demonstrated a cognizable injury under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit disagreed with the district court's rulings. The appellate court held that Nightingale had alleged cognizable injuries, vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment, and also vacated the denial of class certification. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. The court found that Nightingale's receipt of unwanted calls constituted a cognizable invasion of privacy, and that his emotional distress was a cognizable injury under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. The court also found that the district court had applied an incorrect legal rule in its class certification analysis. View "Nightingale v. National Grid USA Service Company Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves a consumer, Yoram Kahn, who alleges that Walmart Inc., the nation's largest retailer, engages in deceptive and unfair pricing practices. Kahn claims that there are small discrepancies between the prices advertised on Walmart's shelves and the prices actually charged at the cash register. These discrepancies, he alleges, add up to hundreds of millions of dollars each year. Kahn argues that these practices violate the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and other states' consumer protection statutes. He also brings a claim for unjust enrichment and seeks to sue on behalf of a class of similarly situated consumers.The district court dismissed the case on the pleadings and denied leave to amend the complaint. The court reasoned that providing a customer with a receipt after payment stating the actual price charged is sufficient to dispel any potential deception or unfairness caused by an inaccurate shelf price. The court also held that Kahn failed to allege that Walmart intended for him to rely on the inaccurate shelf pricing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the complaint states some viable claims. The court rejected the theory that providing a receipt after payment is sufficient to dispel any potential deception or unfairness caused by an inaccurate shelf price. The court also found that Kahn had adequately alleged a deceptive or unfair practice and the required intent. The court remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Kahn v. Walmart Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves a group of consumers who filed arbitration claims against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., alleging that Samsung unlawfully collected and stored sensitive biometric data through their electronic devices, in violation of Illinois law. Samsung denied the allegations and refused to pay the administrative filing fees required by the American Arbitration Association (AAA). The AAA terminated the arbitration proceedings, and the consumers filed a petition to compel arbitration in district court. The district court ordered Samsung to arbitrate and to pay the associated AAA filing fees. Samsung appealed, disputing the existence of an arbitration agreement with the consumers and challenging the district court’s authority to require it to pay the AAA’s fees.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The court found that the consumers failed to meet their evidentiary burden in proving the existence of an arbitration agreement with Samsung. Furthermore, the court held that the district court exceeded its authority by ordering Samsung to pay the AAA's filing fees. The court reasoned that the parties' alleged agreement incorporated the AAA's rules and procedures, which granted the AAA substantial discretion over resolving fee disputes. Therefore, the court concluded that the arbitration had been conducted according to the terms of the alleged agreement, and the district court did not have the authority to order Samsung to pay the AAA's fees. View "Wallrich v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves Gillian and Samuel Davidson, who filed a class action lawsuit against Sprout Foods, Inc., alleging that the labels on Sprout's baby food pouches violated California's Sherman Law, which incorporates all federal food labeling standards. The Davidsons claimed that Sprout's labels, which stated the amount of nutrients the pouches contained, were misleading and harmful to consumers.The district court dismissed the Davidsons' claims. It ruled that the Sherman Law claim was preempted by federal law, which only allows the federal government to enforce food labeling standards. The court also dismissed the Davidsons' fraud-based claims, stating that they failed to specifically allege why Sprout's products were harmful.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court held that federal law did not preempt private enforcement of the Sherman Law's labeling requirements. The court reasoned that the federal food labeling statute permits states to enact labeling standards identical to the federal standards, which California has done through the Sherman Law. Therefore, the district court should not have dismissed the Sherman Law claims. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the Davidsons' fraud-based claims, agreeing with the lower court that the Davidsons failed to meet the heightened pleading requirements for fraud. The court also reversed the dismissal of an unjust enrichment claim, which survived due to the reversal on the Sherman Law claim. View "Davidson v. Sprout Foods, Inc." on Justia Law

During the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, American Screening, LLC, a Louisiana company, promised buyers that it would ship personal protective equipment (PPE) more quickly than it actually did. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sued American Screening, alleging that its shipping policies and practices violated the FTC Act and the Mail, Internet, or Telephone Order Merchandise Rule (MITOR). The company's website contained a shipping policy that stated orders would be processed and shipped within 24-48 hours. However, in practice, it took about six weeks for PPE to be shipped after the customer had purchased it.The district court granted the FTC summary judgment and ordered American Screening to return almost $14.7 million to consumers and permanently enjoined it from advertising or selling PPE. American Screening challenged the district court's ordered remedies on appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court rejected American Screening's contention that the court should have considered whether each individual consumer had relied on American Screening's shipping representations and had sustained an injury as a result. The court also disagreed with American Screening's argument that the district court's equitable monetary relief went beyond what was necessary to redress consumers and so amounts to an award of exemplary or punitive damages. The court found that the relief was tailored to ensure that dissatisfied consumers are made whole while also ensuring that American Screening does not have to pay unharmed customers as punishment.Finally, the court rejected American Screening's challenge to the scope of the permanent injunction barring it from advertising or selling PPE. The court agreed with the district court that the egregiousness of American Screening's conduct weighed in favor of the injunction. The court also found that the injunction's effect on American Screening was more modest than its breadth might suggest. View "FTC v. American Screening, LLC" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute over a real estate and construction contract. The plaintiffs, Myles Davis and Janelle Dahl, sued their homebuilder, Blast Properties, Inc., and Tyler Bosier, alleging breach of contract, fraud, and violations of the Idaho Consumer Protection Act. The plaintiffs sought to amend their complaint to include a prayer for relief seeking punitive damages. The U.S. District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint, but certified a question to the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho due to inconsistencies in the interpretation of Idaho Code section 6-1604(2), which prohibits claimants from including a prayer for relief seeking punitive damages in their initial pleading.The U.S. District Court asked the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho to determine the proper means a trial court must apply when considering a motion to amend a pleading to include a prayer for relief seeking punitive damages pursuant to Idaho Code section 6-1604(2). The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho rephrased the question to clarify the obligations of a trial court under Idaho Code section 6-1604(2) when ruling upon a motion to amend a complaint or counterclaim to include a prayer for relief seeking punitive damages.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho held that section 6-1604(2) requires the trial court to conduct a careful examination of the evidence submitted by the moving party in support of its motion to amend and the arguments made to determine whether there is a "reasonable probability" that the evidence submitted is: (1) admissible at trial; and (2) "sufficient" to support an award of punitive damages. The word "sufficient" means that the claim giving rise to the request for punitive damages must be legally cognizable and the evidence presented must be substantial. The court clarified that the clear and convincing evidentiary standard is the standard for a jury, not the trial court when it is ruling on a motion to amend a pleading to include a prayer for relief seeking punitive damages. View "Davis v. Blast" on Justia Law

The case involves Angela Flowers, who had a car loan with Kia Motors Finance. One morning, Flowers and her son were followed by a truck, which she suspected was an attempt by Kia to repossess her car due to late payments. Flowers sued Kia, alleging unlawful collection practices. However, she was unable to provide any evidence linking Kia to the truck that followed her and her son.Previously, the district court granted Kia summary judgment. Flowers had attempted to include an earlier repossession in her amended complaint, but the court found that she had unduly delayed this attempt. Furthermore, she could not provide any evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to conclude that Kia was involved in the incident with the truck.In the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Flowers argued that she did not need the district court's approval to file an amended complaint, as Kia had consented in writing to the amendment. However, the court found that Flowers had unduly delayed her attempt to amend the complaint and had not provided a sound excuse for this delay. Therefore, the court denied her motion to amend the complaint.The court also affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Kia. Flowers had failed to present any evidence linking Kia to the unidentified truck and driver. Her theory of liability was based on speculation and conjecture, which are insufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion. Therefore, the court concluded that there was no genuine dispute of material fact and that Kia was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. View "Flowers v. Kia Motors Finance" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over a foreclosure judgment. The plaintiff, Susanne P. Wahba, had a loan secured by a mortgage on her property. The defendant, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., acquired the loan and later counterclaimed to foreclose the mortgage. The trial court rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appealed, but the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment and remanded the case for the setting of new law days. On remand, the plaintiff objected to the defendant's motion to reset the law days, arguing that the judgment of strict foreclosure did not account for the substantial increase in property values that had occurred during the appeal. The trial court concluded that it had no authority to revisit the merits of the strict foreclosure judgment, as it was bound by the Appellate Court’s rescript order requiring the setting of new law days. The plaintiff then filed a second appeal with the Appellate Court, which affirmed the trial court's decision.The Connecticut Supreme Court held that the trial court was not barred by the doctrine of res judicata from entertaining the plaintiff’s request to modify the judgment of strict foreclosure and order a foreclosure by sale. The court also held that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the trial court lacked authority to entertain the plaintiff’s request. The court further held that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the plaintiff was required to file a motion to open the judgment of strict foreclosure and to present evidence that the value of the subject property had substantially increased since the date of the original judgment before the trial court could exercise that authority. The judgment of the Appellate Court was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Wahba v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

The case involves Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., Smith & Wesson Sales Company, and Smith & Wesson Inc. (collectively, “Smith & Wesson”) and the Attorney General of the State of New Jersey and the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs. The New Jersey Attorney General issued a subpoena to Smith & Wesson under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, seeking documents related to the company's advertising practices. Smith & Wesson filed a federal lawsuit to enjoin enforcement of the subpoena, alleging it violated various constitutional provisions. The New Jersey Attorney General then filed a subpoena enforcement action in state court. The state court rejected Smith & Wesson’s objections and ordered the company to comply with the subpoena.The state court proceedings concluded before the federal case, with the state court ordering Smith & Wesson to comply with the subpoena. The federal court then dismissed Smith & Wesson’s civil rights action on claim preclusion grounds, giving preclusive effect to the state court’s order. The state appellate court later affirmed the state court judgment. Smith & Wesson appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, arguing that the District Court should not have given preclusive effect to the state court order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order. The court found that all elements of New Jersey’s claim preclusion test were satisfied. The court also rejected Smith & Wesson’s argument that it had reserved its right to litigate in federal court, finding that such reservation was unavailable in this case. The court emphasized that litigants get one opportunity to make their arguments, not two, and they cannot file a federal lawsuit to hedge against a potentially unfavorable state ruling. View "Smith & Wesson Brands Inc. v. Attorney General of the State of New Jersey" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Chiya Lloyd, filed a complaint against FedLoan Servicing LLC, Equifax Information Services, LLC, Trans Union, LLC, and Experian Information Solutions, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The case centered around Lloyd's nine federal student loans serviced by FedLoan, which reported to Experian that Lloyd's payments for certain months were overdue. Lloyd disputed these delinquencies, and Experian requested further information from FedLoan. After several rounds of disputes and investigations, all delinquent marks were removed from Lloyd's credit report. However, Lloyd initiated a civil action against the defendants, alleging that FedLoan failed to properly investigate the accuracy of the information it reported to Experian, and Experian failed to follow its procedures to discover FedLoan’s mistakes.The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Experian, finding that Lloyd could not show Experian failed to follow reasonable procedures or conduct a reasonable reinvestigation. The court also granted summary judgment in favor of FedLoan, concluding that Lloyd did not present sufficient evidence of damage to support her claim.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court found that Experian had followed the steps set forth by the FCRA for conducting a reinvestigation, and Lloyd failed to show that Experian did not satisfy its statutory requirements. The court also found that Lloyd failed to present a cognizable claim against Experian. Regarding FedLoan, the court found that Lloyd failed to present evidence sufficient to allow a jury to find that FedLoan’s investigation was unreasonable. The court also found that Lloyd failed to provide sufficient evidence to raise a jury question that she sustained actual damages from FedLoan’s reporting. Therefore, her claim failed. View "Lloyd v. FedLoan Servicing" on Justia Law