Justia Consumer Law Opinion Summaries

Carrera sued Bayer, claiming that Bayer falsely advertised its product One-A-Day WeightSmart as a multivitamin and dietary supplement that had metabolism-enhancing effects due to its ingredient, epigallocatechin gallate, a green tea extract. The daily dose was one tablet and the price was about $8.99 for 50 tablets. Bayer sold WeightSmart through retail stores until 2007 and did not sell directly to consumers. Carrera initially sought to certify a nationwide class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), bringing a claim under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The court denied certification because New Jersey law did not apply to out-of-state customers. Carrera then moved to certify a Rule 23(b)(3) class of Florida consumers under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Bayer challenged certification, reasoning that class members are unlikely to have documentary proof of purchase and Bayer has no list of purchasers. The Third Circuit vacated class certification. If class members are impossible to identify without extensive and individualized fact-finding or mini-trials, a class action is inappropriate. If class members cannot be ascertained from a defendant’s records, there must be “a reliable, administratively feasible alternative,” not a method that would amount to no more than ascertaining by potential class members‟ say so.”View "Carrera v. Bayer Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against defendants alleging claims under, inter alia, the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), as amended by the Home Ownership Equity Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. 1602 et seq. Defendants are persons and entities involved in the transactions related to the financing of an addition to a house on plaintiffs' property. The court recently joined the Ninth and Tenth Circuits in holding that notice was not sufficient to exercise the right of rescission. In this instance, the court concluded that the district court erred in finding that plaintiffs' notice was sufficient to exercise the right of rescission under section 1635 of TILA. Therefore, plaintiffs' right of rescission expired upon the sale of the property. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's finding that plaintiffs' notice was sufficient to exercise the TILA statutory right of rescission. The court affirmed, however, the district court's grant of summary judgment, the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims, and the dismissal of the Hartmans as parties to the case. View "Hartman, et al. v. Smith, et al." on Justia Law

In 2004, Plaintiffs refinanced their home by means of a loan from Downey Savings and Loan Association (Downey), a federal insured financial institution. In 2008, Plaintiffs' monthly loan payment doubled. Later that year, Downey was closed and the FDIC was appointed as its receiver. U.S. Bank subsequently assumed all of Downey's loans and mortgages. After Plaintiffs defaulted on their mortgage loan, U.S. Bank conducted a foreclosure sale and recorded a foreclosure deed. Plaintiffs, in turn, sued U.S. Bank, claiming that the loan made by Downey violated various state consumer protection laws and that the foreclosure was unlawful. U.S. Bank removed the case to federal district court, which granted summary judgment to U.S. Bank. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act's exhaustion requirement applied to Plaintiffs' consumer protection claims, and therefore, Plaintiffs' failure to file those claims with the FDIC divested the district court of subject-matter jurisdiction; and (2) the transfer of a mortgage, authorized by federal law, obviates the need for a specific written assignment of the mortgage that state law would otherwise require, and thus, the foreclosure sale in this case was lawful. View "Demelo v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n" on Justia Law

The issue before the Tenth Circuit in this case centered on a written consumer contract for the sale of goods and whether it incorporated by reference a separate document entitled "Terms of Sale" which was available on the seller's website, but that the contract stated that it was "subject to" the seller's "Terms of Sale" but does not specifically reference the website? Finding no controlling precedent, the Tenth Circuit decided to certify the question to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. View "Walker, et al v. BuildDirect.com Technologie" on Justia Law

This case involved the foreclosure sale of certain property owned by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs appealed the district court's dismissal with prejudice of their claims against BAC and NDE under the Texas Debt Collection Act (TDCA), Tex. Fin. Code 392.304(a), the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), Tex. Bus. & Com. Code 17.41 et seq., and Texas common law. The court concluded that plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to state a claim against BAC for misrepresenting the status or nature of the services that it rendered. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of the TDCA claims under section 392.304(a)(14) as to that basis, remanding for further proceedings. Consequently, the court also reversed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' request for an accounting from NDE. The court affirmed in all other respects. View "Miller, et al. v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., et al." on Justia Law

Sam’s Club is a members-only retail warehouse that features a section for clearance items, called “as-is” items. Items may be designated “as-is” for various reasons and may be damaged or undamaged. Every as-is item is marked with an orange sticker; when a cashier scans the item, the original price appears and the cashier must perform a manual override. The software records the fact that a price override was performed, but does not include the reason. Overrides can occur for reasons other than “as-is” designation. Sam’s contracted with NEW to sell extended warranties for items sold in the store. NEW will not cover some “as is” products, including some purchased by Hayes. On each occasion, Sam’s employees offered and Hayes purchased a NEW warranty. The store provided Hayes with a manual and remote missing from a television he purchased and offered to refund the warranty price. Hayes declined. Hayes sued, on behalf of himself and all other persons who purchased a warranty for an as-is product from Clubs in New Jersey since 2004, asserting violation of the state Consumer Fraud Act, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. The trial court certified a Rule 23(b)(3) class. The Third Circuit vacated and remanded for consideration of Rule 23’s class definition, ascertainability, and numerosity requirements in light of a recent decision. View "Hayes v. WalMart Stores Inc" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed putative class actions under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), 15 U.S.C. 1693, alleging that Mutual First and First National violated the Act because defendants' ATM machines did not have "on machine" notice of a transaction fee. The district court dismissed for lack of standing. The court concluded, however, that plaintiff's claim of statutory damages was sufficiently related to his injury to confer standing where defendants did not provide him with the required "on machine" notice and then charged him a prohibited fee following an ATM transaction that he initiated and completed. Further, plaintiff's injury was fairly traceable to defendants' conduct where, if defendants had not violated the Act's notice requirement, plaintiff would not have been forced to choose between engaging in a transaction without the required notice and walking away. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Charvat v. Mutual First Fed. Credit Union" on Justia Law

This was a FDCPA action stemming from proceedings that occurred in a debt collection action filed by Defendant Abby Shadakofsky against Plaintiff-Appellant George James in Wyoming state court in August 2011. Shadakofsky retained Defendant-Appellee Cheryl Wadas, a licensed attorney whom Shadakofsky had a previous retainer agreement, to represent her on an as-needed basis. James asserted that Wadas, and Shadakofsky vicariously as Wadas's principal, violated the FDCPA by: (1) representing that legal fees were $3,000 when the underlying debt did not provide for the recovery of legal fees; (2) serving and filing an untimely answers/replies to the counterclaims; and (3) serving discovery requests in relation to the counterclaims. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Wadas. Shadakofsky subsequently moved to dismiss the vicarious liability claim against her and the district court granted the motion. James appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment. At issue before the Tenth Circuit was the district court's interpretation of the term "debt collector" under the FDCPA, and its conclusion that Wadas was not a "debt collector" because she did not engage in debt collection "regularly." The Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court's analysis and affirmed. View "James v. Wadas, et al" on Justia Law

Former starting quarterback for Arizona State University, Samuel Keller, filed a putative class action suit against EA, alleging that EA violated his right of publicity under California Civil Code 3344 and California common law by using Keller's likeness as part of the "NCAA Football" video game series. EA moved to strike the complaint as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) under California's anti-SLAPP statute, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 425.16. The court concluded that EA could not prevail as a matter of law based on the transformative use defense where EA's use did not qualify for First Amendment protection because it literally recreated Keller in the very setting in which he had achieved renown. The court also concluded that, although there was some overlap between the transformative use test and the Rogers v. Grimaldi test, the Rogers test should not be imported wholesale to the right-of-publicity claims. Finally, the court concluded that state law defenses for reporting of information did not protect EA's use. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to strike the complaint. View "In re: NCAA Licensing Litig." on Justia Law

Retired Hall of Fame football player, James "Jim" Brown, filed suit against EA, alleging that EA violated section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), through the use of Brown's likeness in EA's "Madden NFL" series of football video games. The court rejected the "likelihood of confusion" test and the "alternative means" test, concluding that the only relevant legal framework for balancing the public's right to be free from consumer confusion about Brown's affiliation with "Madden NFL" and EA's First Amendment rights in the context of Brown's section 43(a) claim was the Rogers v. Grimaldi test. Applying the Rogers test, the court concluded that the use of Brown's likeness was artistically relevant to the "Madden NFL" games and that there were no alleged facts to support the claim that EA explicitly mislead consumers as to Brown's involvement with the games. In this case, the public interest in free expression outweighed the public interest in avoiding consumer confusion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of EA's motion to dismiss. View "Brown v. Electronic Arts, Inc." on Justia Law