Justia Consumer Law Opinion Summaries

Jeremy Harris filed a lawsuit against City Cycle Sales, Inc. (CCS) in Kansas state court, alleging negligence and a violation of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act (KCPA) due to CCS's failure to repair the Anti-Lock Brake System (ABS) on his motorcycle. Harris was seriously injured when the ABS malfunctioned. He abandoned the KCPA claim before the case went to the jury, which resulted in a final judgment against him on all claims. Harris appealed the adverse judgment on the negligence claim but did not challenge the KCPA claim. After the appellate court reversed the negligence judgment and remanded for a new trial, Harris and CCS stipulated to dismiss the case without prejudice. Harris then filed a new lawsuit in federal district court, again alleging negligence and KCPA violations, and won on both claims.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas denied CCS's motion to dismiss the KCPA claims, reasoning that the law-of-the-case doctrine and preclusion principles did not apply because there was no final judgment on the merits of the KCPA claims. The jury awarded Harris damages, finding CCS liable for both negligence and KCPA violations. CCS appealed, arguing that Harris was barred from raising the KCPA claim in federal court and that there was insufficient evidence to support the negligence claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the judgment on the KCPA claim, holding that Harris was barred from raising the statutory claim in federal court due to his abandonment of the claim in the state trial and appellate courts. The court ruled that the federal district court was required to give full faith and credit to the Kansas proceedings, which had a preclusive effect on the KCPA claim. However, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the judgment on the negligence claim, finding that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that CCS's negligence caused Harris's injuries. View "Harris v. City Cycle Sales" on Justia Law

A group of Google Chrome users who chose not to sync their browsers with their Google accounts alleged that Google collected their personal data without consent. They believed that, based on Google's Chrome Privacy Notice, their data would not be collected if they did not enable sync. The users filed a class action lawsuit against Google, claiming violations of various state and federal laws.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment in favor of Google. The court found that the data collection was "browser-agnostic," meaning it occurred regardless of the browser used. It concluded that Google's general privacy policies, which the users had consented to, governed the data collection. The court held that a reasonable person would understand from these policies that Google collected data when users interacted with Google services or third-party sites using Google services.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the district court should have determined whether a reasonable user would understand Google's various privacy disclosures as consenting to the data collection. The court found that the district court erred by focusing on the technical distinction of "browser agnosticism" rather than the reasonable person standard. The appellate court noted that Google's Chrome Privacy Notice could lead a reasonable user to believe that their data would not be collected without enabling sync. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings to determine whether the users consented to Google's data collection practices. View "CALHOUN V. GOOGLE LLC" on Justia Law

Adam N. Berry alleged that Experian Information Solutions, a consumer reporting agency, negligently or willfully published inaccurate information in his consumer report, indicating he owed spousal and child support. Berry provided Experian with court orders that purportedly showed he had no outstanding support obligations, but Experian continued to report a balance due as indicated by the Michigan Office of Child Support (OCS).The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted Experian’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The district court reasoned that the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) required Experian to report any information received from OCS about Berry’s failure to pay support. The court concluded that because Experian was required to report the unpaid balance and had verified the information’s accuracy with OCS, Berry’s claims were not actionable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that Berry sufficiently pleaded that Experian did not adopt reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy and did not reasonably reinvestigate Berry’s consumer report after he challenged its accuracy. The court emphasized that the FCRA requires consumer reporting agencies to adopt reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy and to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation if a consumer disputes the report’s accuracy. The court found that Experian’s reliance on automated verification with OCS, without further investigation into the court orders provided by Berry, was insufficient. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s opinion. View "Berry v. Experian Information Solutions" on Justia Law

A consumer of a glucosamine-based dietary supplement filed a putative class action lawsuit against the supplement’s manufacturer and retailer under New York law. The plaintiff alleged that the supplement was mislabeled because it contained a different formulation of glucosamine than what was displayed on the front of the label and disclosed as the main ingredient on the side. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that the product contained blended glucosamine rather than single-crystal glucosamine, which she believed to be more effective for alleviating joint pain.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted summary judgment for the defendants on federal preemption grounds. The court concluded that the plaintiff’s state law mislabeling claims were preempted by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), which establishes national standards for the labeling of dietary supplements. The district court found that the FDCA’s comprehensive regulatory scheme and its broad preemption clauses foreclosed the plaintiff’s state law claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the plaintiff’s state law mislabeling claims were expressly preempted by the FDCA. The court reasoned that the FDCA preempts any state law that imposes labeling requirements not identical to those set forth in the FDCA and its regulations. The court found that the product’s labeling complied with the FDCA’s requirements, as the dietary ingredient “glucosamine sulfate potassium chloride” was identified using methods endorsed by the FDA. Therefore, the plaintiff’s claims were preempted, and the judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Jackson-Mau v. Walgreen Co." on Justia Law

Ryan Haygood, a dentist in Louisiana, faced an investigation by the Louisiana State Board of Dentistry, which led to the revocation of his dental license in 2010. Haygood alleged that competing dentists conspired with Board members to drive him out of business by fabricating complaints and manipulating the Board's proceedings. In 2012, a Louisiana appellate court vacated the Board's revocation of Haygood's license, citing due process violations. Haygood then entered a consent decree with the Board, allowing him to keep his license.Haygood filed a civil action in state court in 2011, alleging due process violations and unfair competition. In 2013, he filed a similar federal lawsuit, claiming violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act (LUTPA). The federal district court dismissed the federal complaint, ruling that the § 1983 claim was time-barred and the LUTPA claim was not plausible. The court also awarded attorney’s fees to the defendants, deeming both claims frivolous.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision to award attorney’s fees for the frivolous § 1983 claim, agreeing that it was clearly time-barred. However, the appellate court found that the district court erred in calculating the fee amount. The district court had properly calculated $98,666.50 for the defendants' private attorneys but improperly awarded $11,594.66 for the Louisiana Attorney General’s office without using the lodestar method. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit remitted the fee award to $98,666.50 while affirming the decision to award fees. View "Haygood v. Morrison" on Justia Law

David Schaffner, Jr. and Theresa Sue Schaffner filed a lawsuit against Monsanto Corporation, alleging that Monsanto violated Pennsylvania law by failing to include a cancer warning on the label of its weed-killer, Roundup. The Schaffners claimed that this omission caused Mr. Schaffner to develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma due to his exposure to Roundup. The case was initially filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, and was later removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (JPML) then transferred the case to the Northern District of California for consolidated pretrial proceedings.In the Northern District of California, the MDL Court had previously ruled in similar cases that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) did not preempt state-law tort duties to include a cancer warning on Roundup’s label. Following this precedent, the MDL Court denied Monsanto’s motion for summary judgment on preemption grounds. The case was subsequently remanded to the Western District of Pennsylvania, where the parties stipulated to a judgment in favor of the Schaffners, reserving Monsanto’s right to appeal the preemption issue.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and focused on whether FIFRA preempted the Pennsylvania duty to warn. The court held that FIFRA’s preemption provision, which prohibits states from imposing labeling requirements different from those required under federal law, did preempt the state-law duty to include a cancer warning. The court reasoned that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had approved Roundup’s label without a cancer warning, and FIFRA regulations require pesticide labels to conform to the EPA-approved label. Therefore, the Pennsylvania duty to warn was not equivalent to the federal requirements and was preempted by FIFRA. The Third Circuit reversed the judgment of the District Court. View "Schaffner v. Monsanto Corporation" on Justia Law

William Lyons opened a Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC) account with National City Bank in 2005, which was later acquired by PNC Bank. PNC withdrew funds from Lyons' deposit accounts to offset outstanding HELOC payments without prior notification. Lyons contested these withdrawals, claiming they were unauthorized. PNC responded, asserting their right to make the withdrawals. Lyons then sued for economic and statutory damages, as well as emotional distress.The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. PNC moved to compel arbitration on the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) claim, which the district court partially granted. Both parties appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the Dodd-Frank Act prohibits arbitration of claims related to residential mortgage loans. The case was remanded to the district court, which ruled in favor of PNC on both the TILA and Real Estate Settlement Practices Act (RESPA) claims. The district court held that TILA’s offset provision does not apply to HELOCs and that the CFPB had the authority to exempt HELOCs from RESPA’s requirements.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that TILA’s offset provision does apply to HELOCs, reversing the district court’s decision on the TILA claim. The court found that the term "credit card plan" includes HELOCs when accessed via a credit card. However, the court affirmed the district court’s decision on the RESPA claim, agreeing that the CFPB has the authority to exempt HELOCs from RESPA’s definition of “federally related mortgage loans.” The case was reversed and remanded in part and affirmed in part. View "Lyons v. PNC Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Alison George sought to represent a class and obtain damages from Rushmore Service Center, LLC, based on a letter that identified Premier Bankcard, LLC as the “current/original creditor” instead of the actual credit card company. George alleged that this violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by failing to identify the creditor to whom the debt was owed and providing misleading information. She claimed that this would confuse the least sophisticated consumer about the legitimacy of the debt.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted Rushmore’s motion to stay proceedings and compel individual arbitration. George lost in arbitration, where the arbitrator ruled in favor of Rushmore, finding that George was not misled because she admitted she did not read the letter. The District Court then declined to vacate the arbitration award, rejecting George’s arguments that the arbitrator disregarded evidence and law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and focused on whether George had standing to sue. The court concluded that George lacked standing from the outset because her complaint did not allege any specific adverse effects or confusion she personally experienced due to the letter. The court held that confusion alone is insufficient to establish a concrete injury under Article III. Consequently, the Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s orders and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of standing. The court declined to vacate the arbitration award itself, leaving its enforceability to be determined in a jurisdictionally correct proceeding. View "George v. Rushmore Service Center LLC" on Justia Law

Jacquelyn N’Jai filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Education, New York University (NYU), Long Island University (LIU), Immediate Credit Recovery, Inc. (ICR), and FMS Investment Corporation (FMS), alleging various violations of federal law. N’Jai claimed that she had repaid her student loans but was falsely certified for additional loans by a bank analyst, with NYU and LIU allegedly signing her name on fraudulent loan applications. She contended that the Department of Education and its debt collectors used unlawful practices to collect on these loans, including garnishing her tax refund and threatening to garnish her Social Security checks.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed N’Jai’s claims against LIU, NYU, ICR, and FMS for lack of personal jurisdiction, citing the government contacts exception. This exception prevents the assertion of personal jurisdiction based solely on a defendant’s contact with federal government agencies in the District of Columbia. The court dismissed the claims against the remaining defendants for other reasons.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case, focusing on whether the government contacts exception under D.C. law is limited to First Amendment activities. The court noted the ongoing uncertainty about the scope of this exception, referencing previous cases where the D.C. Court of Appeals had not definitively resolved whether the exception is confined to First Amendment activity. Due to this uncertainty, the appellate court certified two questions to the D.C. Court of Appeals: whether the government contacts exception is limited to First Amendment activity and, if so, whether the contacts alleged in this case fall under that exception. The appellate court did not make a final ruling on the personal jurisdiction issue, pending the D.C. Court of Appeals' response to the certified questions. View "N'Jai v. Department of Education" on Justia Law

The case involves the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) challenging the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) approval of Perdue's "Fresh Line" chicken and turkey product labels. ALDF claimed that the labels, which depicted birds roaming outside, were misleading because the birds were raised indoors. ALDF requested the USDA to disapprove these labels, arguing that they misled consumers. The USDA declined, leading ALDF to sue, alleging violations of the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed ALDF's complaint, concluding that ALDF lacked standing to challenge the USDA's actions. The court found that ALDF failed to establish both organizational and associational standing. Specifically, the court determined that ALDF's member, Marie Mastracco, did not suffer a sufficiently concrete injury to confer standing.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court agreed with the district court, finding that ALDF did not demonstrate that Mastracco faced an ongoing or imminent injury. The court noted that while Mastracco was misled by the labels in the past, she now knows the truth about the birds' living conditions, making any future reliance on the labels self-inflicted. Additionally, the court found that ALDF failed to show that other poultry-product labels with similar misleading graphics existed, which would be necessary to establish a substantial likelihood of future harm.The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of ALDF's complaint without prejudice, holding that ALDF lacked standing to pursue its claims. View "Animal Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v. Vilsack" on Justia Law