A consumer produced sufficient evidence of emotional injury to proceed with a claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in reversing a summary judgment.
A plaintiff could not pursue a claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act in the absence of evidence that she suffered actual damages from an allegedly inaccurate criminal background check, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in affirming a summary judgment.
The Federal Trade Commission has updated its guidelines for online advertising disclosures to grapple with some of the new technologies since its last guidance in 2000.
Federal consumer protection law does not completely preempt state-law claims brought by a plaintiff who allegedly she was fraudulently induced into accepting a home loan, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in reversing a dismissal.
A homeowner who complied with the terms of her trial payment plan under the federal HAMP program could not be denied a permanent loan modification, the California Court of Appeal has ruled in reversing a dismissal.
A payday lender could not enforce an arbitration clause included in its online loan application form, the Montana Supreme Court has ruled in affirming judgment.
A credit card customer was not required to show that she was the victim of identity theft in order recover damages for a retailer’s violation of a state law prohibiting the disclosure of personal information on transaction forms, Massachusetts’ highest court has ruled.
Published: March 1, 2013
Tags: Children’s Motrin, consumer protection, drug litigation, failure to warn, FDA, Food and Drug Administration, Johnson & Johnson, Motrin, preemption, Stevens-Johnson Syndrome, Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis
A Massachusetts jury awarded $63 million to a teenaged girl and her parents after the girl suffered an adverse reaction to Children’s Motrin that left her scarred and blind, with permanent brain and lung damage.
And the award may increase.
Federal law didn’t require a mortgage servicer to respond to letters complaining of overcharges that a borrower faxed to locations other than the address the company designated to receive such complaints, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in affirming a dismissal.
A consumer class action filed in state court failed to include facts necessary to trigger the time period for removal under the Class Action Fairness Act, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in reversing a remand order.