Justia Consumer Law Opinion Summaries

John Craig First purchased an agricultural combine from Rolling Plains Implement Company, which was manufactured by AGCO Corporation. First was told the combine was part of AGCO’s Certified Pre-Owned Program, had roughly 400 hours of use, and had never been to the field. However, these representations were false; the combine was not certified and had over 1,200 hours of use. After experiencing numerous issues with the combine, First discovered in 2019 that it had an extensive repair history and over 900 hours of use. He then filed a lawsuit against Rolling Plains, AGCO Corporation, AGCO Service, AGCO Finance, and other related entities.Initially, First filed his lawsuit in the District Court of Oklahoma County, but it was removed to federal court in Oklahoma, which dismissed the case without prejudice and transferred it to the Northern District of Texas. First amended his complaint multiple times, asserting claims of fraud, breach of warranty, and failure of essential purpose. The district court dismissed the fraud claims against AGCO Corporation, AGCO Service, and AGCO Finance for lack of particularity and granted summary judgment in favor of AGCO Finance on the warranty claims. The case proceeded to trial on the remaining claims, where the jury found that First knew or should have known of the fraud by April 13, 2017, and awarded him $96,000 in damages. However, the district court entered judgment in favor of Rolling Plains based on the statute of limitations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. It vacated the district court’s judgment as a matter of law in favor of Rolling Plains, finding insufficient evidence to support the jury’s selected date for the statute of limitations. The case was remanded for retrial on when First’s cause of action accrued. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of fraud claims against AGCO Corporation, AGCO Service, and AGCO Finance, and upheld the summary judgment in favor of AGCO Finance on the warranty claims. View "First v. Rolling Plains Implement Co." on Justia Law

In September 2021, cybercriminals targeted a chain of pawnshops, a payday lender, and a prepaid-card company, exposing customers' personal information. The companies informed customers of the breach weeks later, leading to three nationwide class-action lawsuits in the District of Minnesota. The companies moved to dismiss the cases, arguing lack of standing and failure to state a claim, but did not mention arbitration. They continued to engage in litigation activities, including briefing issues, preparing a discovery plan, and requesting a pretrial conference. There is a dispute about whether the companies mentioned arbitration during the pretrial conference, but no formal motion to compel arbitration was filed until months later.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota found that the companies had waived their right to arbitration by substantially engaging in litigation. The court noted that the companies had no credible explanation for their delay in filing the motion to compel arbitration, despite allegedly deciding to do so during the pretrial conference.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court applied a two-part test to determine waiver of the right to arbitration, focusing on whether the party knew of the right and acted inconsistently with it. The court concluded that the companies had knowledge of their right to arbitration and acted inconsistently by engaging in extensive litigation activities. The companies' actions, including participating in a motion-to-dismiss hearing and scheduling mediation, were deemed to have substantially invoked the litigation machinery, thus waiving their right to arbitration. The court emphasized that the companies' delay and litigation conduct were inconsistent with promptly seeking arbitration. View "Thomas v. Pawn America Minnesota, 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

This case involves a class action lawsuit against Logan Health Medical Center ("Logan Health") following a significant data breach of its information technology systems. The breach, which occurred on November 22, 2021, exposed highly sensitive personal identifying information and protected health information of over 200,000 current and former patients and others affiliated with Logan Health. Patricia Tafelski, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, filed a complaint against Logan Health. After a series of negotiations, the parties agreed to a settlement of $4.3 million for a common fund. The District Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement on December 6, 2022.The District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, in and for the County of Cascade, granted final approval of the Settlement Agreement, awarded Class Counsel attorney fees, and denied the Objectors’ motion for discovery. The Objectors, Mark Johnson and Tammi Fisher, appealed the order, arguing that the attorney fees of 33.33% of the settlement fund were unreasonable and that their motion for discovery was wrongly denied.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Class Counsel attorney fees. The court also found that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Objectors’ motion for discovery. The court noted that the District Court had made adequate findings on each of the factors for determining the reasonableness of attorney fees and that those findings were supported by the record. The court also noted that the District Court had conscientiously considered the nature of the litigation and the interests of the class in denying the Objectors’ motion for discovery. View "Tafelski v. Johnson" on Justia Law

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