Justia Consumer Law Opinion Summaries

Haamid Khan created an account with Coinbase, Inc., an online platform for buying, selling, and storing digital currencies. Khan alleged that Coinbase charged customers a hidden “Spread Fee” during transactions, which was not clearly disclosed to users. He claimed that the fee was only revealed if a customer clicked a tooltip icon and that the platform’s design misled less sophisticated users by imposing the fee only on those using the default trading option. Khan sought an injunction under California’s unfair competition and false advertising laws to prohibit Coinbase from continuing these practices.Coinbase responded by filing a petition in the City & County of San Francisco Superior Court to compel arbitration, citing a user agreement that included an arbitration clause and a waiver of class and public injunctive relief. The trial court denied Coinbase’s petition, finding that Khan’s claims sought public injunctive relief, which could not be waived or compelled to arbitration under California law, specifically referencing McGill v. Citibank, N.A. The court determined that the relief sought would benefit the public at large, not just Khan or a defined group of users.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case de novo. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order, holding that Khan’s complaint seeks public injunctive relief under the standards set forth in McGill. The court found that the arbitration agreement’s waiver of public injunctive relief was invalid and unenforceable. It concluded that Khan’s requested injunction would primarily benefit the general public by prohibiting ongoing deceptive practices, and thus, his claims could proceed in court rather than arbitration. The order denying Coinbase’s petition to compel arbitration was affirmed. View "Kahn v. Coinbase, Inc." on Justia Law

A homebuyer entered into an agreement to purchase a property in Titusville, Pennsylvania, and, before completing the purchase, orally contracted with a home inspector to perform an inspection. The inspector delivered a report that did not disclose any structural or foundational issues. Relying on this report, the buyer purchased the property. The following winter, a burst pipe led to the discovery of significant defects, including the absence of a proper foundation and improper ductwork, which had not been disclosed in the inspection report. The buyer filed suit against the inspector more than two years after the report was delivered, alleging violations of the Pennsylvania Home Inspection Law, breach of contract, and violations of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.The Court of Common Pleas of Crawford County overruled most of the inspector’s preliminary objections and denied a motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding ambiguity in the statute governing the time to bring actions arising from home inspection reports. The trial court reasoned that the statute could be interpreted as either a statute of limitations or a statute of repose and declined to grant judgment for the inspector. On appeal, the Superior Court reversed, holding that the statute in question was a statute of repose, not a statute of limitations, and that all of the buyer’s claims were time-barred because they were filed more than one year after the inspection report was delivered.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed whether the relevant statutory provision, 68 Pa.C.S. § 7512, is a statute of repose or a statute of limitations. The Court held that the statute is a statute of repose, barring any action to recover damages arising from a home inspection report if not commenced within one year of the report’s delivery, regardless of when the claim accrues. The Court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment. View "Gidor v. Mangus" on Justia Law

An elderly homeowner in New Jersey was approached by a door-to-door salesman who offered her “free” rooftop solar panels. She accepted the offer after some hesitation, but was never shown or asked to sign any paperwork. Later, her son discovered that she had been signed up for a 25-year loan of nearly $100,000, with documents digitally signed in her name and sent to a fake email address created by the salesman. The solar panels were installed but were unusable due to the home’s condition. When the homeowner tried to cancel, the companies involved refused. She then sued the solar company, its CEO, and the lenders who financed the panels, alleging fraud and violations of both state and federal law.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed her claims against the lenders, Sunlight Financial LLC and Cross River Bank, finding that she had not plausibly alleged that the salesman was acting as their agent. The court allowed some claims against the solar company and its CEO to proceed, but the plaintiff later voluntarily dismissed those remaining claims. She then appealed the dismissal of her claims against the lenders.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case de novo. It held that the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege an agency relationship between the salesman and the lenders, as required for vicarious liability under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The court also found that the plaintiff did not plead direct liability with the particularity required by Rule 9(b), and that the lenders’ actions in obtaining her credit report were permissible under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of all claims against the lenders. View "Migliore v. Vision Solar LLC" on Justia Law

Carol Rose, a prominent figure in the American Quarter Horse industry, entered into a series of agreements with Lori and Philip Aaron in 2013. The Aarons agreed to purchase a group of Rose’s horses at an auction, lease her Gainesville Ranch with an option to buy, and employ her as a consultant. The relationship quickly soured after the auction, with both sides accusing each other of breaches. Rose locked the Aarons out of the ranch and asserted a stable keeper’s lien for charges exceeding those related to the care of the Aarons’ horses. The Aarons paid the demanded sum and removed their horses. Litigation ensued, including claims by Jay McLaughlin, Rose’s former trainer, for damages related to the value of two fillies.The bankruptcy filings by Rose and her company led to the removal of the ongoing state-court litigation to the United States Bankruptcy Court. After trial, the bankruptcy court ruled in favor of the Aarons on their breach of contract and Texas Theft Liability Act (TTLA) claims, awarding damages and attorneys’ fees, and in favor of McLaughlin on his claim. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas reversed the bankruptcy court’s rulings on the Aarons’ claims and McLaughlin’s claim, vacating the damages and fee awards.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s reversal of the damages award for the Aarons’ breach of contract claim, holding that the Aarons failed to prove damages under any recognized Texas law measure. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment on the TTLA claim, holding that Rose’s threat to retain the Aarons’ horses for more than the lawful amount could constitute coercion under the TTLA, and remanded for further fact finding on intent and causation. The court also reversed and remanded the judgment regarding McLaughlin’s claim, finding his damages testimony legally insufficient. The court left the issue of attorneys’ fees for further proceedings. View "Rose v. Equis Equine" on Justia Law

Several individuals brought a class action lawsuit against a group of insurance companies after a data breach compromised the driver’s license numbers of nearly three million people. The breach occurred when hackers exploited the companies’ online insurance quoting platform, which auto-populated sensitive information using data from both customers and third-party sources. The plaintiffs, whose information was compromised, alleged various harms, including time spent monitoring their financial records, increased risk of identity theft, emotional distress, and, for two plaintiffs, discovery of their driver’s license numbers on the dark web.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the consolidated class action complaint, finding that none of the named plaintiffs had standing to pursue their claims. The district court concluded that the alleged injuries were either too speculative or not sufficiently concrete to satisfy Article III’s standing requirements, and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1).On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed whether the plaintiffs had standing to bring suit. The Fourth Circuit held that two plaintiffs, who alleged that their driver’s license numbers were actually posted on the dark web, suffered a concrete and particularized injury analogous to the common-law tort of public disclosure of private information. This injury was sufficient to confer standing to seek damages. However, the court found that the other plaintiffs, who did not allege their information was made public, lacked standing because their alleged injuries—such as increased risk of future harm, time spent on mitigation, and emotional distress—were either not imminent or not independently sufficient for standing. The Fourth Circuit therefore affirmed the district court’s dismissal as to those plaintiffs, reversed as to the two plaintiffs with information posted on the dark web, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Holmes v. Elephant Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The case concerns a dispute between purchasers of a used vehicle and the seller, a car dealership, over the enforcement of a vehicle service warranty contract. The purchasers alleged that after buying the vehicle and a service contract, they repeatedly sought repairs from the dealership, paid deductibles, were denied direct communication with the repair shop, and did not receive the necessary repairs. They claimed the dealership falsely represented that repairs had been completed. As a result, they filed suit for breach of contract, breach of warranty, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.The District Court for Tulsa County, presided over by Judge Damon Cantrell, reviewed the dealership’s motion for partial summary judgment. The dealership argued that Oklahoma’s Service Warranty Act, specifically Title 15, Section 141.24(B), barred tort claims for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing in connection with service warranty contracts. The purchasers contended that this statutory provision was an unconstitutional special law. Judge Cantrell denied the dealership’s motion, finding the statute unconstitutional.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case on a writ of prohibition. The Court held that Title 15, Section 141.24(B) is not an unconstitutional special law because it applies uniformly to all service warranty contracts, including those issued by companies with significant assets, and does not single out a particular class for disparate treatment. The Court further held that the statute abrogates the prior judicial rule allowing tort claims for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing in this context. The Supreme Court granted the writ of prohibition, precluding enforcement of the lower court’s order, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "AMERICA'S CAR MART v. CANTRELL" on Justia Law

Ajay Thakore, a resident of La Jolla, California, and owner of Gopher Media LLC, a digital marketing agency, became involved in a dispute with Andrew Melone and American Pizza Manufacturing (APM), a local “take-n-bake” restaurant. The conflict began after the City of San Diego converted parking spaces outside APM to 15-minute zones. Thakore, who frequented nearby businesses and allegedly had a financial stake in a competitor, was accused of parking for extended periods and initiating contentious exchanges. Thakore and Gopher Media sued Melone and APM in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, alleging harassment, discrimination, and unfair competition. Melone and APM counterclaimed, alleging defamation, trade libel, and unfair business practices, including claims that Thakore and Gopher Media orchestrated negative online reviews and made false statements on social media.In response to the countercomplaint, Thakore and Gopher Media filed a motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16), arguing that the alleged conduct constituted protected speech on a public issue. The United States District Court for the Southern District of California denied the anti-SLAPP motion. Thakore and Gopher Media then sought an interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, challenging the denial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, reviewed whether it had jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal from the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion under the collateral order doctrine. The court held that such denials do not resolve issues completely separate from the merits and are not effectively unreviewable after final judgment. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit overruled its prior decision in Batzel v. Smith, dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and remanded the case. View "GOPHER MEDIA LLC V. MELONE" on Justia Law

The case involved two related companies and three individuals who operated a business targeting immigrants detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and eligible for release on immigration bonds. The companies marketed their services as an affordable way to secure release, but in reality, they charged high fees for services that were often misrepresented or not provided. The agreements were complex, mostly in English, and required significant upfront and recurring payments. Most consumers did not understand the terms and relied on the companies’ oral representations, which were deceptive. The business was not licensed as a bail bond agent or surety, and the defendants’ practices violated federal and state consumer protection laws.After the plaintiffs—the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia—filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, the defendants repeatedly failed to comply with discovery obligations and court orders. They did not produce required documents, ignored deadlines, and failed to appear at hearings. The district court, after multiple warnings and opportunities to comply, imposed default judgment as a sanction for this misconduct. The court also excluded the defendants’ late-disclosed witnesses and exhibits from the remedies hearing, finding the nondisclosures unjustified and prejudicial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decisions. The Fourth Circuit held that the default judgment was an appropriate sanction for the defendants’ repeated and willful noncompliance. The exclusion of evidence and witnesses was also upheld, as was the issuance of a permanent injunction and the calculation of monetary relief, including restitution and civil penalties totaling approximately $366.5 million. The court found no abuse of discretion or legal error in the district court’s rulings and affirmed the final judgment in all respects. View "Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Nexus Services, Inc." on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff was subject to a default judgment in 2006 for an unpaid credit card debt after a process server claimed to have effected substitute service at a Hayward, California address. The plaintiff asserted he was never served, did not reside at the address where service was attempted, and only learned of the judgment in December 2022. The debt was later assigned to a new creditor, who sought to renew and enforce the judgment, which had grown substantially with interest. After the plaintiff’s motion to vacate the judgment for lack of service was denied, he filed a new action seeking equitable relief to set aside the judgment and alleging violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.The Superior Court of Alameda County granted the defendants’ anti-SLAPP motions, striking the complaint and dismissing it with prejudice. The court found the plaintiff’s uncorroborated declaration insufficient to rebut the presumption of valid service and concluded he had not shown a likelihood of prevailing on his equitable or statutory claims. The court also determined that, because the plaintiff admitted to owing the debt, he could not establish a meritorious defense to the underlying action.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reversed the trial court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the trial court erred by weighing the credibility of the plaintiff’s declaration at the anti-SLAPP stage, rather than accepting it as true for purposes of determining minimal merit. The appellate court further held that, where a challenge to a default judgment is based on lack of service, due process does not require the plaintiff to show a meritorious defense to set aside the judgment. The court also found that the plaintiff’s statutory claim under the Rosenthal Act was not contingent on prevailing on his equitable claims. The judgment was reversed and costs were awarded to the plaintiff. View "Ahmed v. Collect Access, LLC" on Justia Law

The City of New York brought suit in New York state court against several major oil companies and the American Petroleum Institute, alleging violations of New York’s consumer protection laws through deceptive advertising about the environmental impact of fossil fuels. The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserting multiple grounds for federal jurisdiction. The City moved to remand the case to state court, but the district court stayed proceedings pending the outcome of a similar case, Connecticut v. Exxon Mobil Corp., in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.After the Second Circuit affirmed the remand in the Connecticut case, the district court in New York lifted the stay and allowed the parties to re-brief the remand motion in light of the new precedent. The City renewed its motion to remand and requested attorneys’ fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The oil companies continued to oppose remand, pressing several arguments that had already been rejected by numerous federal courts, including the Second Circuit in the Connecticut case. The district court granted the motion to remand and awarded the City attorneys’ fees and costs, but only for work related to five of the six grounds for removal, and only for work performed after the Connecticut decision.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed only the award of attorneys’ fees and costs. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding fees and costs for the objectively unreasonable grounds for removal pressed after the legal landscape had shifted. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s order, concluding that the award was justified under the “unusual circumstances” exception recognized in Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp. View "The City of New York v. Exxon Mobil Corp." on Justia Law