Justia Consumer Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff commenced a class action, alleging SC Data Center, Inc. (“SC Data”) committed three violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. Sections 1681-1681x. In May 2016, the parties reached a tentative settlement agreement. Four days later, the Supreme Court decided Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016), which led SC Data to move to dismiss this action for lack of standing. On remand, the district court determined that Plaintiff had standing as to all three claims.   The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court’s orders and held that Plaintiff lacked Article III standing and remanded the matter to the district court with directions to remand the case to state court. The court held that the text of the FCRA nor the legislative history provide support for Plaintiff’s claim that she has a right under the FCRA to not only receive a copy of her consumer report but also discuss directly with the employer accurate but negative information within the report prior to the employer taking adverse action. Further, the court concluded that Plaintiff has not established that she suffered a concrete injury due to the improper disclosure, thus she lacks standing to pursue her improper disclosure or failure to authorize claims. View "Ria Schumacher v. SC Data Center, Inc." on Justia Law

On the panel's initial hearing of the case, Judge Higginson concluded that the restrictions on the President's removal authority under the Consumer Financial Protection Act are valid and constitutional. Judge Higginson found that neither the text of the United States Constitution nor the Supreme Court's previous decisions support appellants' arguments that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is unconstitutionally structured, and thus he affirmed the district court's judgment.More than two years later, and after conducting a vote among the circuit judges, the Fifth Circuit vacated its previous opinion and elected to hear the case en banc. View "CFPB v. All American Check Cashing, et al" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court confirming an arbitration award in favor of Car Credit, Inc., holding that the arbitration agreement was valid and that the circuit court did not err.Cathy Pitts entered into a retail installment contract and security agreement with Car Credit to purchase and finance a vehicle. The parties also entered into a written arbitration agreement. After Car Credit repossessed the vehicle and sued Pitts for the remaining deficiency balance Pitts filed a counterclaim alleging an unlawful and deceptive pattern of wrongdoing followed by Car Credit. The circuit court sustained Car Credit's motion to compel arbitration. The arbitrator entered an award on the merits' of Pitts' claim in favor of Car Credit. The circuit court entered judgment for Car Credit on all causes of action in accordance with the arbitration award. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the arbitration agreement was enforceable. View "Car Credit, Inc. v. Pitts" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition sought by Petitioner to prohibit certification of a class of individuals who received documents from Petitioner containing language that purportedly violated the West Virginia Consumer Credit Protection Act (WVCCPA), W. Va. Code 46A-2-127(g), holding that the circuit court's order did not sufficiency analyze the predominance and superiority factors of W. Va. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).Respondents, like the class they proposed to represent, purchased a dissatisfactory HVAC unit from Petitioner. Respondents filed a putative class action alleging that the documents used by Petitioner violated the WVCCPA. The circuit court eventually certified a class action. Petitioner then sought a writ of prohibition challenging the class certification on two grounds. The Supreme Court denied the writ of prohibition as to the first ground but granted it as to the second, holding that the circuit court's order was conclusory as to its analysis of the predominance and superiority factors. View "State ex rel., Dodrill Heating & Cooling, LLC v. Honorable Maryclaire Akers" on Justia Law

Following a data breach targeting servers owned by Defendant, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant violated federal securities laws by omitting material information about data vulnerabilities in their public statements.The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the complaint, finding that the investors did not adequately allege that any of Defendant’s statements were false or misleading when made.The court explained that to state a claim under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, a plaintiff must first allege a “material misrepresentation or omission by the defendant.” However, not all material omissions give rise to a cause of action. Here, Plaintiffs focus on statements about the importance of protecting customer data; privacy statements on Defendant's website; and cybersecurity-related risk disclosures. The court found that Plaintiffs failed to allege that any of the challenged statements were false or rendered Defendant's public statement misleading. Although Defendant could have disseminated more information to the public about its vulnerability to cyberattacks, federal securities law does not require it to do so. View "Construction Laborers Pension Trust Southern CA v. Marriott International, Inc." on Justia Law

Outstanding debt for Chicago traffic tickets surpassed $1.8 billion last year. Under a 2016 Chicago ordinance, when a driver incurs the needed number of outstanding tickets and final liability determinations, Chicago is authorized to impound her vehicle and to attach a possessory lien. Many drivers cannot afford to pay their outstanding tickets and fees, let alone the liens imposed on their cars through this process. Mance incurred several unpaid parking tickets; her car was impounded and subject to a possessory lien of $12,245, more than four times her car’s value. With a monthly income of $197 in food stamps, Mance filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and sought to avoid the lien under 11 U.S.C 522(f). When a vehicle owner files for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, she can avoid a lien under 522(f) if the lien qualifies as judicial and its value exceeds the value of her exempt property (the car). If the lien is statutory, it is not avoidable under the same provision.The bankruptcy and district courts and the Seventh Circuit concluded that the lien was judicial and avoidable. The lien was tied inextricably to the prior adjudications of Mance’s parking and other infractions, so it did not arise solely by statute, as the Bankruptcy Code requires for a statutory lien. View "City of Chicago v. Mance" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Adventist Health System/West and Hanford Community Hospital (collectively, Hospital), for a violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA; Civ. Code, Sec. 1750 et seq.) and declaratory relief.Plaintiff received emergency treatment and services at Hospital’s emergency room in Hanford. The emergency room did not contain a posted notice or warning that a substantial EMS Fee would be added to Plaintiff’s bill on top of the individual charges for each item of treatment and services provided to her. Plaintiff alleged Hospital engaged in a deceptive practice when it did not disclose its intent to charge her a substantial emergency room EMS Fee.Hospital moved for judgment on the pleadings, which the trial court granted. The court found that although Plaintiff’s pleading adequately alleges Hospital failed to disclose facts that were known exclusively by Hospital and were not reasonably accessible to Plaintiff, the court concluded Plaintiff’s conclusory allegation that she relied on the failure to disclose the EMS Fee and thereafter received treatment at the Hospital does not plead the element of reliance with sufficient particularity.In an unpublished part of the opinion, the court concluded Plaintiff has not carried her burden of demonstrating the trial court erred when it denied her leave to file a third amended complaint. Thus, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Torres v. Adventist Health System/West" on Justia Law

Plaintiff bought garments from Eddie Bauer Outlet Stores advertising sales of 40–70% off. The price tags of the garments included two numbers: a higher price, which the parties call a “reference” or “list price,” and a lower “sale” price. Plaintiff paid the “sale” price for the clothes. She alleges that she relied on the representation that she was getting the clothes on sale, but later discovered that the “list prices” were misleading because Eddie Bauer never sold the garments for the “list price” and that the Eddie Bauer Outlet Stores have perpetual sales of 40–70% off.The court concluded that the disposition of this appeal turns on a question of Oregon law: whether a consumer suffers an “ascertainable loss” under Or. Rev. Stat. Sec. 646.638(1) when the consumer purchased a product that the consumer would not have purchased at the price that the consumer paid but for a violation of Or. Rev. Stat. Secs. 646.608(1)(e), (i), (j), (ee), or (u), if the violation arises from a representation regarding the product’s price, comparative price, or price history, but not about the character or quality of the product itself. View "SUSAN CLARK V. EDDIE BAUER LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action against air conditioner manufacturer Carrier Corporation alleging that his air conditioner was defective, asserting state law claims and a federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA") claim. The court reasoned that although the MMWA is a federal statute, federal courts do not have jurisdiction over an MMWA claim if the amount in controversy is less than $50,000. At issue is whether attorneys’ fees count toward the MMWA’s amount in controversy requirement.The panel held that attorneys’ fees are not “costs” within the meaning of MMWA, and therefore they may be included in the amount in controversy if they are available to prevail plaintiffs pursuant to state fee-shifting statutes.The panel next considered whether Plaintiff could include attorneys’ fees toward the MMWA’s $50,000 jurisdictional threshold. Plaintiff’s MMWA claim was premised on Carrier’s alleged breach of express and implied warranties pursuant to Michigan law. Neither of these statutes grants a prevailing plaintiff attorneys’ fees. The court found that even if this claim was included in his lawsuit, the Act makes clear that attorneys’ fees are not available in a class action. Thus, because Plaintiff brought this claim as part of a putative class action, he is not entitled to attorneys’ fees under state law. View "NICHOLAS SHONER V. CARRIER CORPORATION" on Justia Law

Johnson & Johnson, Ethicon, Inc., and Ethicon US, LLC (collectively, Ethicon) appealed after a trial court levied nearly $344 million in civil penalties against Ethicon for willfully circulating misleading medical device instructions and marketing communications that misstated, minimized, and/or omitted the health risks of Ethicon’s surgically-implantable transvaginal pelvic mesh products. The court found Ethicon committed 153,351 violations of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and 121,844 violations of the False Advertising Law (FAL). The court imposed a $1,250 civil penalty for each violation. The Court of Appeal concluded the trial court erred in just one respect: in addition to penalizing Ethicon for its medical device instructions and printed marketing communications, the court penalized Ethicon for its oral marketing communications, specifically, for deceptive statements Ethicon purportedly made during one-on-one conversations with doctors, at Ethicon-sponsored lunch events, and at health fair events. However, there was no evidence of what Ethicon’s employees and agents actually said in any of these oral marketing communications. Therefore, the Court of Appeal concluded substantial evidence did not support the trial court’s factual finding that Ethicon’s oral marketing communications were likely to deceive doctors. Judgment was amended to strike the nearly $42 million in civil penalties that were imposed for these communications. View "California v. Johnson & Johnson" on Justia Law