Justia Consumer Law Opinion Summaries

Two individuals were seriously injured during a 2022 mass shooting at the Edmund Burke School in Washington, D.C. The shooter, a 23-year-old man from Virginia, used an AR-15 and various accessories and ammunition manufactured by multiple U.S. and foreign companies. The shooter built his arsenal by purchasing and assembling these products, which were then used in the attack. Both plaintiffs, a parent picking up her child and a school security guard, survived but suffered severe physical and emotional injuries.The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, asserting claims under Virginia’s False Advertising Statute and Consumer Protection Act, and alleging negligence and negligence per se for violations of the National Firearms Act and Virginia’s Uniform Machine Gun Act. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because their injuries were not “fairly traceable” to the defendants’ conduct. The district court agreed, dismissing the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). Despite this, the court also reached the merits and dismissed the claims under Rule 12(b)(6), finding them barred by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s standing ruling, holding that the plaintiffs had alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate that their injuries were “fairly traceable” to the defendants’ alleged misconduct, thus satisfying Article III’s requirements. The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s alternative merits ruling under the PLCAA as advisory and beyond its jurisdiction, remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Lowy v. Daniel Defense, LLC" on Justia Law

A Texas nonprofit health center, CentroMed, experienced a data breach in 2024 that exposed the personal information of its patients. Arturo Gonzalez, representing himself and others affected, filed a class action in Bexar County, Texas, alleging that CentroMed failed to adequately protect their private information. CentroMed, which receives federal funding and has occasionally been deemed a Public Health Service (PHS) employee under federal law, sought to remove the case to federal court, claiming removal was proper under 42 U.S.C. § 233 and 28 U.S.C. § 1442.After CentroMed was served, it notified the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the United States Attorney, seeking confirmation that the data breach claims fell within the scope of PHS employee immunity. The United States Attorney appeared in state court within the required 15 days, ultimately informing the court that CentroMed was not deemed a PHS employee for the acts at issue because the claims did not arise from medical or related functions. Despite this, CentroMed removed the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas 37 days after service. The district court granted Gonzalez’s motion to remand, concluding that removal was improper under both statutes: the Attorney General had timely appeared, precluding removal under § 233, and removal under § 1442 was untimely.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s remand. The Fifth Circuit held that CentroMed could not remove under § 233 because the Attorney General had timely appeared and made a case-specific negative determination. The court further held that removal under § 1442 was untimely, as CentroMed did not remove within 30 days of receiving the initial pleading. Thus, the remand to state court was affirmed. View "Gonzalez v. El Centro Del Barrio" on Justia Law

Two students enrolled at a private university in California during early 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic prompted widespread campus closures. In accordance with local lockdown orders, the university transitioned from in-person to online instruction in March 2020. Prior to the Fall 2020 semester, the university communicated with students about its intention to return to in-person education but made clear that such plans depended on approval from local authorities. Ultimately, the university continued remote instruction. The students remained enrolled and later graduated.The students filed suit in the Superior Court of Orange County, alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and unfair business practices. They argued that the university had made an enforceable promise to provide in-person education, citing various university publications, course listings, policies, and statements about on-campus experiences. They sought a partial tuition refund and raised alternative claims regarding unfair or unlawful representations. The university moved for summary judgment, asserting that it had not made any specific promise to provide in-person instruction and that its statements reflected only general expectations. The Superior Court granted summary judgment for the university, relying on Berlanga v. University of San Francisco and finding no triable issue of material fact regarding any misrepresentation.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case and affirmed the judgment. The court held that the university’s statements and practices did not constitute sufficiently specific enforceable promises of in-person education under California law. The court found that only specific, explicit promises are enforceable in the student-university relationship, and none were present here. The court also rejected the students’ unjust enrichment and unfair business practices claims. The judgment in favor of the university was affirmed, and the university was awarded costs on appeal. View "Grant v. Chapman University" on Justia Law

The case concerns a job applicant who, after accepting an offer of employment as a sales associate at a large retailer, received an investigative consumer report as part of the onboarding process. The applicant was presented with a lengthy disclosure form that identified multiple consumer reporting agencies rather than only the one that provided her report. She alleged that the employer failed to comply with specific requirements under California’s Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA), including not identifying the agency actually conducting the investigation in a standalone document, and including extraneous information. She also claimed other technical violations related to the handling of her report.The Superior Court of San Diego County reviewed the matter after the employee brought suit for ICRAA violations. The employer moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff lacked standing because she did not suffer any concrete injury or adverse employment action resulting from the alleged violations—she was hired and received the report. The trial court agreed, finding that the applicant had not shown injury, and entered judgment for the employer.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. It held that under the plain language of ICRAA, a consumer need only show that a statutory violation occurred to have standing and to recover the statutory sum of $10,000; no further showing of injury or harm is required. The court distinguished California law from federal standards, emphasized relevant legislative history, and declined to follow interpretations requiring proof of concrete injury. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment and directed that summary judgment be vacated. View "Parsonage v. Wal-Mart Associates" on Justia Law

The plaintiff leased and later purchased a 2013 vehicle from the defendant, which subsequently developed engine problems. After experiencing issues like rattling and crunching noises and receiving a safety recall notice, the plaintiff sought repairs and eventually requested that the defendant repurchase the car due to unresolved defects. The defendant did not respond to these repurchase requests.The plaintiff sued for violations under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, breach of warranties, fraud by omission, and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). The Superior Court of San Diego County sustained the defendant’s demurrer to the CLRA claim without leave to amend, citing the plaintiff’s failure to file a required venue affidavit with the complaint. During discovery, the defendant repeatedly objected to producing documents related to engine defects and verified, under penalty of perjury, that no responsive documents existed. The plaintiff challenged the adequacy of the defendant’s document search and later discovered evidence indicating the defendant had produced such documents to a government agency in another matter. The trial court denied the plaintiff’s motions to compel and for terminating sanctions, accepted the defendant’s responses, and excluded key evidence at trial, which left the plaintiff unable to prove fraud.At trial, the jury found that a defect existed but concluded the defendant remedied it, resulting in a defense verdict. The trial court denied the plaintiff’s motions for a new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, focusing on the plaintiff’s delay in discovering withheld documents and awarding costs to the defendant.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reversed and remanded. The court held that the defendant’s discovery misuse denied the plaintiff a fair trial, requiring a new trial and monetary sanctions to compensate for costs and attorney fees. It also directed that the plaintiff be given leave to amend the CLRA claim and vacated the award of prevailing-party costs to the defendant. View "Higginson v. Kia Motors America" on Justia Law

Lea and Samantha Johnson obtained a mortgage loan serviced by Freedom Mortgage Corporation and made regular payments. After filing for bankruptcy in March 2020, they reaffirmed the loan, but were required to pay by mail and instructed to include their loan number with each payment. In April 2020, Lea mailed a cashier’s check for their monthly payment, but did not put the loan number on the check itself. Freedom Mortgage received the check but could not identify the correct account to credit, as the check did not match the payment amount and only listed Samantha’s name, a common name among its customers. As a result, the payment was not credited and the Johnsons’ account was marked past due, which was subsequently reported to credit agencies. After realizing the issue, the Johnsons sent a new check with the loan number and the payment was credited, but their credit reports reflected a late payment.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota found there was no material dispute about the accuracy of Freedom Mortgage’s reporting and granted summary judgment to the defendant. The court determined that the payment was in fact late because the first check did not comply with the required instructions, and therefore the information reported to the credit agencies was accurate.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment order de novo. The court held that Freedom Mortgage’s investigation into the Johnsons’ credit dispute was reasonable given the conclusory nature of the dispute letters. The court also found that the reported late payment was accurate under both the standard and heightened accuracy tests, and declined to adopt a heightened standard of accuracy. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Freedom Mortgage. View "Johnson v. Freedom Mortgage Corp." on Justia Law

The State of Ohio brought a lawsuit in state court against several pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and related entities, alleging they conspired to artificially inflate prescription drug prices in violation of Ohio law. Ohio claimed that the PBMs, acting as intermediaries between drug manufacturers and health plans, negotiated rebates and fees in a manner that increased drug list prices and extracted payments from pharmacies, harming consumers and violating state antitrust and consumer protection statutes. The PBMs provided services to both private clients and federal health plans, including those for federal employees and military personnel.The defendants, Express Scripts and Prime Therapeutics, removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio under the federal officer removal statute, arguing that their negotiations on drug prices were conducted on behalf of both federal and non-federal clients in a unified process subject to federal oversight. Ohio moved to remand the case to state court, asserting that its claims did not target conduct directed by federal officers and disclaimed any challenge to the administration of federal health programs like FEHBA or TRICARE. The district court accepted Ohio’s disclaimer and determined that the complaint did not impose liability for acts under federal direction, granting Ohio’s motion to remand.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the matter de novo. The court held that the PBMs were “persons acting under” federal officers because their negotiations were performed under detailed federal supervision and regulation for federal health plans. The court further found that the complaint related to acts under color of federal office, as the alleged wrongful conduct was inseparable from federally directed negotiations. The court also determined that the PBMs raised colorable federal defenses based on federal preemption. Consequently, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s remand order and remanded the case for further proceedings in federal court. View "Ohio ex rel. Yost v. Ascent Health Services, LLC" on Justia Law

An individual seeking to refinance his mortgage visited a website that offers mortgage information and referrals to affiliated lenders. During three separate visits, he entered personal information and clicked buttons labeled “Calculate” or “Calculate your FREE results.” Immediately below these buttons, the website displayed language in small font stating that clicking would constitute consent to the site’s Terms of Use, which included a mandatory arbitration provision and permission to be contacted by the site or affiliates. The Terms of Use were accessible via a hyperlinked phrase. After using the site, the individual was matched with a particular lender but did not pursue refinancing. Later, he received multiple unwanted calls from the lender and filed a class-action lawsuit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, alleging violations such as calling numbers on the Do Not Call registry.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan initially dismissed the complaint on the merits and denied the lender’s motion to compel arbitration as moot. Upon realizing the arbitration issue should have been decided first, the court reopened the case but found no enforceable agreement to arbitrate existed, denying the motion to compel arbitration. The court also denied reconsideration and allowed the plaintiff to amend his complaint. The lender appealed the denial of arbitration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the denial de novo. It held that, under California law, the website provided reasonably conspicuous notice that clicking the buttons would signify assent to the Terms of Use, including arbitration. The court found that the plaintiff’s conduct objectively manifested acceptance of the offer, forming a binding arbitration agreement. The court also concluded that the agreement was not invalid due to unspecified procedural details and that questions of arbitrability were delegated to the arbitrator. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and remanded for further proceedings. View "Dahdah v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC" on Justia Law

The State of Iowa brought suit against several related corporate entities associated with the TikTok social media platform, alleging violations of the Iowa Consumer Frauds Act. The State claimed that TikTok misrepresented the safety and age-appropriateness of its app by maintaining a “12+” rating on app stores despite the presence of mature and inappropriate content. The app was widely downloaded and used in Iowa, with hundreds of thousands of devices in the state activating it. TikTok entered into terms of service agreements with Iowa users, collected location data, and targeted Iowa-specific advertisements, thereby generating revenue from its Iowa user base.In the Iowa District Court for Polk County, the TikTok entities moved to dismiss the State’s petition on several grounds, including lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court denied the motion, finding that it had personal jurisdiction over the defendants and that the State had properly pleaded a valid claim. The district court also denied the State’s request for a temporary injunction, concluding that irreparable harm had not been shown. The defendants sought interlocutory review solely on the issue of personal jurisdiction, which was granted.Upon review, the Iowa Supreme Court found that the TikTok entities had sufficient minimum contacts with Iowa, having purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of conducting business in the state by entering into ongoing contractual relationships, collecting data, and serving targeted advertisements. The court concluded that the State’s claims “arose out of or related to” these contacts, and that exercising jurisdiction did not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Accordingly, the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. View "State of Iowa, Ex Rel. Attorney General Brenna Bird v. Tiktok, Inc." on Justia Law

Nicholas Giovannelli, a United States Army veteran, was photographed in Afghanistan in 2009. The image appeared on a Department of Defense website and was later downloaded and licensed by Stocktrek Images to Posterazzi, which produced posters featuring Giovannelli’s likeness. These posters were sold online through retailers including Walmart, Pixels, Amazon, and Posterazzi. Giovannelli only learned of the commercial use of his image in 2020, when a friend discovered the posters online. Experiencing renewed PTSD symptoms, Giovannelli sued the companies for violating the Illinois Right of Publicity Act, which prohibits using a person’s identity for commercial purposes without consent.The lawsuits were removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and severed due to misjoinder. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Giovannelli’s claims were barred by the Act’s one-year statute of limitations. Each district judge—Edmond E. Chang, LaShonda A. Hunt, and Jeffrey I. Cummings—granted summary judgment for the defendants, citing Blair v. Nevada Landing Partnership, where the Illinois Appellate Court held that the limitations period starts when the photo is first published, not when the plaintiff discovers the use.Reviewing the case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit applied de novo review. The court held that, under Illinois law and Blair, the single-publication rule governs claims under the Illinois Right of Publicity Act—so the statute of limitations begins at first publication. The court found no basis for applying the discovery rule, and the exception for “hidden, inherently undiscoverable, or inherently unknowable” publications did not apply since the image was publicly accessible. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district courts’ judgments, finding Giovannelli’s claims time-barred. View "Giovannelli v Stocktrek Images, Inc." on Justia Law