State class actions alleging that drug makers labeled their products with deceptive expiration dates met the amount-in-controversy requirement for removal under the Class Action Fairness Act, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in reversing judgment.
A consumer lawsuit alleging that Philip Morris misrepresented the characteristics of Marlboro Lights may satisfy the state’s requirement’s for class certification, the Oregon Court of Appeals has ruled in reversing judgment.
Published: June 27, 2013
Tags: antitrust, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, common law, consumer protection, effective vindication, Federal Arbitration Act, mandatory arbitration, U.S. Supreme Court
WASHINGTON – The chasm between civil defense attorneys who extol the virtues of mandatory arbitration agreements and members of the plaintiffs’ bar who say the pacts strip consumers of their right to redress was widened by the U.S. Supreme Court last week.
A gas station chain did not violate state consumer protection law by sometimes requiring customers to provide their ZIP codes when making purchases with credit cards, California Court of Appeal has ruled in affirming a summary judgment.
A class action waiver in a consumer contract’s arbitration clause was invalid where the plaintiffs demonstrated that enforcement would effectively deny them a remedy, Massachusetts’ highest court has ruled.
Four of South Carolina’s most prominent trial lawyers are facing potential liability for millions of dollars in damages in the wake of Monday’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to broaden the protections afforded personal information compiled by state departments of motor vehicles.
The litigation exception to the federal Driver’s Privacy Protection Act does not allow attorneys to obtain the personal information of drivers for the “predominant purpose” of soliciting new clients.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the litigation exception to a federal privacy law did not allow four South Carolina trial attorneys to obtain the personal information of drivers for the “predominant purpose” of soliciting new clients for consumer lawsuits.
Two debt settlement services sued for violating state consumer protection law may be able to establish a meeting of the minds necessary to enforce an arbitration clause in their customer’s contract, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in reversing judgment.
Businesses that provided financing for personal injury plaintiffs are subject to the requirements placed on lenders under state consumer credit law, the Colorado Court of Appeals has ruled in affirming judgment.