Chicago Business Litigation Lawyer Blog

Oak Brook and Chicago attorney Donna Adler of DiTommaso-Lubin recently appeared Nick Augistine's radio show. Donna spoke about how consumers can help stop businesses "who cheat big in small ways" through the filing of class-action lawsuits. Donna explained class action lawsuits can vindicate consumer rights and stopp consumer frauds in their tracks when filing an individual lawsuit would be too expensive. Donna is committed helping consumers recover fraud damages. Donna discusses some of the consumer fraud and unpaid overtime class-actions and collective action cases she is litigating as a trial lawyer at our firm. Donna has over two decades of experience litigating cases that vindicate consumer and immigrant rights. She also prosecutes and defends complex business lawsuits.

You can listen to the show by clicking on this link.

Our consumer rights private law firm handles individual and class action consumer fraud, wage claim and unpaid overtime cases that government agencies and public interest law firms such as the Illinois Attorney General may not pursue. Class action lawsuits our law firm has been involved in or spear-headed have led to substantial awards totalling over a million dollars to organizations including the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Consumer Law Center, and local law school consumer programs. DiTommaso-Lubin is proud of our achievements in assisting national and local consumer rights organizations obtain the funds needed to ensure that consumers are protected and informed of their rights. By standing up to consumer fraud and consumer rip-offs, and in the right case filing consumer protection lawsuits and class-actions you too can help ensure that other consumers' rights are protected from consumer rip-offs and unscrupulous or dishonest practices.

Our Naperville, Downers Grove, Hinsdale, Evanston, Aurora, Waukegan, Joliet, Elmhust, Lombard, Elgin, Highland Park, Northbrook, Wilmette, Wheaton, Oak Brook, and Chicago consumer lawyers provide assistance in unfair debt collection, consumer fraud and consumer rights cases including in Illinois and throughout the country. You can click here to see a description of the some of the many individual and class-action consumer cases we have handled. A video of our lawsuit which helped ensure more fan friendly security at Wrigley Field can be found here. You can contact one of our Chicago area consumer protection lawyers who can assist in lemon law, unfair debt collection, wage claim, unpaid overtime, and other consumer, consumer fraud or consumer class action cases by filling out the contact form at the side of this blog or by clicking here.

As Chicago employee rights attorneys, we were interested to see what may have been the first unpaid overtime filing of 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Harris v. Cheddar’s Casual Café, No. 20-cv-0045 (N.D. Ill.) was filed Jan. 5 by three former servers and bartenders who seek to certify a class of current and former employees denied overtime and tips by the Cheddar’s Casual Café chain of restaurants. Plaintiffs Donny Harris, Keith McKinstery and Shaniqua Bell allege that managers at a Cheddar’s in Boilingbrook, Ill shaved time off their timecards and required them to work off the clock in order to avoid paying overtime. They also allege that their tips were diverted to a tip pool that illegally included non-tipped workers.

The complaint in the case says plaintiffs, and other similarly situated workers, were required to clock in and out for their shifts using the chain’s computerized system. They allege that the restaurant, and manager Solomon Tristan, illegally manipulated the timesheets created by that system to remove hours. They also allege that they were encouraged to work before clocking in and after clocking out, further denying them overtime. Furthermore, the plaintiffs say, they were compelled to participate in a tip pool that included the restaurant’s “quality assurance” workers, who they say are not tipped employees. Under federal law, employers may not pay tipped employees less than minimum wage unless they are allowed to keep all their tips, or contribute only to a legal tip pool. Thus, the complaint said, Cheddar’s policies violate the Fair Labor Standards Act.

At Nationwide Consumer Rights, our Wheaton, Ill. overtime attorneys see cases like this frequently. Hourly employees such as waiters and bartenders are regular targets for employers who prefer not to pay all of the wages they owe, and even sometimes to skim their earned tips to pay other employees. This behavior relies on employees to stay quiet, either because they don’t know they have rights or because they’re afraid of punishment for speaking up. However, federal and state law is very clear employees must be compensated for all of their time at work, and paid time and a half for any time over 40 hours in a week. Failure to follow these basic requirements exposes companies to lawsuits seeking all of the back pay owed, attorney fees and any other costs incurred. In cases of egregious law-breaking, courts may also require employers to pay punitive damages -- money intended to penalize willful law-breaking.

Continue reading "Lawsuit Alleges Illinois Restaurant Shaved Hours From Servers’ Timecards" »

The below short video documentary shows that wage theft is a real and growing problem.

In our work as Illinois and nationwide wage and hour attorneys, we frequently see workers who have been misclassified as exempt from overtime. Whether this was an honest mistake or an intentional attempt to save money, it effectively “steals” wages from the misclassified employees. DiTommaso-Lubin stands up for the rights of workers in Chicago, Illinois and throughout the country who are victims of overtime wage theft, including misclassified employees as well as those pressured to work off the clock; lie on timesheets; or simply not paid an overtime rate. Our Oak Brook, Waukegan, Elgin, Warrenville, Highland Park, Lisle, Wheaton, Northbrook, Aurora, Elgin, Evanston, Joliet and Chicago unpaid overtime lawyers handle both individual and class action employment cases. Based in Chicago and Oak Brook, Ill., our Chicago overtime attorneys represent clients throughout Illinois, the Midwest and the United States.

Our Oak Brook, Ill. employee rights attorneys were very interested to see a recent labor lawsuit against telecom giant AT&T. Bloomberg News reported Dec. 17 that two separate units of the company were hit with simultaneous lawsuits Dec. 16 over unpaid overtime. The plaintiffs seek to represent more than 5,000 current and former workers who they say were misclassified as low-level managers, so AT&T would not have to pay them overtime. Each of the two lawsuits seeks $500 million in unpaid overtime, as well as compensation for rest and meal breaks that were allegedly not granted.

According to the article, the employees were classified as “Level One” managers, even though their job duties didn’t meet the federal definition of management positions. They say they worked as many as 60 hours a week, or 10 to 14 hours a day, and were expected to be available on weekends, all without overtime pay. In fact, the Atlanta plaintiffs claim that they were eligible for overtime when they worked for BellSouth, before its acquisition by AT&T. Joe Luque, a lead plaintiff in the San Francisco litigation, said in a press release that he was chewed out when he tried to exercise managerial duties by firing a poor-performing employee. The suits come shortly after a Connecticut federal court certified a class of AT&T workers with similar complaints, in a suit filed by the same law firm.

As Chicago overtime rights lawyers, we’re pleased to see workers standing up for themselves against such a large employer. The right to overtime pay is provided by a federal law called the Fair Labor Standards Act, which requires time and a half for any work above 40 hours a week. This can be very expensive -- so some companies, instead of hiring extra personnel to handle the work, look for ways to break the law. Mis-classifying employees as “managers” with no real management duties is one way to end-run around workers’ rights. Other employers may pressure their employees to work off the clock; work through legally required rest and meal breaks; or shift the extra hours to another week. Unfortunately, far too many workers don’t understand their rights, or are afraid of losing their jobs if they stand up for themselves.

Continue reading "Employees File Proposed Class Action Accusing AT&T of Misclassifying Them -- Our Chicago Overtime Attorneys Bring Class Action Wage Lawsuits in Illinois and Across the Country" »

Our Illinois overtime rights lawyers were interested to see a recent ruling on unpaid overtime from the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In Musch v. Domtar Industries, No. 08-4305 (7th Cir. Nov. 25, 2009), Alan Musch and his colleagues were maintenance workers at two Wisconsin paper mills owned by Domtar Industries. In their lawsuit, they say their job routinely exposes them to dangerous chemicals, requiring them to put on special protective gear before shifts and to shower and change after. They are not paid for the time it takes to do those things, however. They sued for unpaid overtime pay for the showering and changing time, as well as for time spent shaving, a requirement under Domtar company policy.

After the case was filed, Domtar moved for summary judgment dismissing the case. It argued that company policy says workers should shower and change immediately after exposure to a hazardous chemical, even if that means the employee goes into overtime. Because it has that policy, the company argued, overtime compensation was inappropriate. The district court agreed and granted summary judgment for Domtar. After the court declined to reconsider, the plaintiffs appealed both rulings. They argued that the district court missed or ignored evidence showing that chemicals actually were on workers’ skin; that is, they do not shower because they merely think they might have the chemicals. Thus, changing and showering time is appropriate for overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

In its analysis, the Seventh Circuit started by noting that the FLSA and Wisconsin law both require employers to pay for all of the work employees do. However, federal law makes a distinction between work and preliminary or postliminary activities. Changing and washing is ordinarily considered preliminary or postliminary, the court wrote, but may sometimes be considered part of the job if it’s “integral” and “indispensable” to the job. The plaintiffs argued evidence showed that they didn’t always realize there were chemicals on their skin until the end of shifts, meaning showering after shifts would be following the company’s stated policy.

The Seventh Circuit disagreed. The plaintiffs’ evidence showed that showers were sometimes necessary, it wrote, but not that the Domtar policy of showering after any exposure was insufficient. Furthermore, the court said, employees admitted to bringing work clothes home to wash them, suggesting that they don’t believe the chemical exposure is that serious. Finally, employees are free to seek overtime under the existing company policy when they are required to shower and change, the Seventh said. Because these are all “normal conditions” under the meaning of the FLSA, the post-shift changing and showering is postliminary activity, not an essential job requirement, the court wrote. Thus, it upheld the trial court’s orders.

Continue reading "Employees Not Entitled to Compensation for Showering Time After Shift" »

Our Chicago overtime rights lawyers were interested in a recent wage and hour decision out of the Second Circuit. In Whalen v. J. P. Morgan Chase Co., No. 08-4092 (2nd. Cir. Nov. 20, 2009), a group of loan underwriters sued J.P. Morgan Chase, their employer, for unpaid overtime in a proposed class action. The plaintiffs contended that they were misclassified as administrative employees, because their duties did not meet the federal Department of Labor’s definition of administrative duties. The district court in New York disagreed and granted summary judgment for Chase. But the Second Circuit reversed that judgment, saying loan underwriters cannot be exempt administrative employees because their work furthered Chase’s core business of making loans, rather than helping to run or direct the company.

For four years, plaintiff Andrew Whalen worked for Chase as an underwriter. His job was to evaluate whether to grant loans to individuals, using detailed guidelines provided by Chase. Some underwriters were sometimes permitted to deviate from these standards. Whalen contended that he frequently worked more than 40 hours a week, but Chase classified him as an administrative employee exempt from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Whalen eventually sued for a declaratory judgment that Chase violated the FLSA by failing to pay overtime, but Chase prevailed on cross-motions for summary judgment. Whalen appealed.

The Second started by looking at the definition of administrative employees. The federal Department of Labor says administrative work is “directly related to management policies or general business operations” and “customarily and regularly exercises discretion and independent judgment.” Using a variety of documents from the Department on the financial services industry, the court drew a distinction between exempt employees with advisory duties and non-exempt employees who carry out the employer’s day-to-day operations.

Whalen’s job was to sell loans according to Chase’s detailed standards, the court wrote, not to advise customers on which loans to get. This puts the job firmly on the “production” side of Chase’s business, the court wrote, as distinct from management duties or “general business operations” such as human resources. Furthermore, the Second wrote, Chase itself referred to underwriters’ duties as “production” work. In doing so, the court drew a distinction between “production” and “administrative” work supported by its own past decision in Reich v. State of New York, 3 F.3d 581 (2d Cir. 1993) as well as by precedents in the Ninth, Third and First Circuits. Whalen’s job did not met the management/general business operations test set forth by the Department of Labor, the court wrote, which is enough to conclude that he was not a bona fide administrative employee. Thus, the Second Circuit reversed the trial court’s summary judgment decision.

Continue reading "Loan Underwriters Are ‘Production’ Employees Eligible for Overtime, Court Rules" »

This video describes how senior citizens and disabled persons are often targeted for consumer scams and rip-offs.

Based in Chicago, Wilmette and Oak Brook, Ill., DiTommaso-Lubin handles informercial, stock broker, auto dealer and RV dealer fraud and other consumer fraud and lemon law litigation for clients in Wheaton, Naperville,Wheaton, Waukegan, Evanston, Joliet, Aurora, Elgin, Lisle and in other parts of Illinois, the Midwest and throughout the United States. In addition to helping individuals and families, our Chicago class action attorneys have successfully handled numerous consumer rights class actions. If you believe you're a victim of fraud and misrepresentations or a deceptive business practice, please contact us as soon as possible to learn about your rights at a free consultation.

The Illinois Department of Labor has a great website which provides alot of useful information on fair labor laws including the requirement that employers pay time and half for overtime work for non-exempt employees.

You can find the website here. With regard to federal and Illinois overtime laws, the website provides answers to various questions and links to other areas of the site for answers:

When is overtime pay legally due?

You are entitled to pay at time and one half your regular rate of pay if you worked over 40 hours in a workweek. You will need to ask your employer for their definition of a workweek. For more information, click here. 820 ILCS 105/4a (1) and 56 Ill. Adm. Code 210.400.

Does my employer have to pay me time and one half or double time for working a legal holiday or a Sunday?

No. If working the legal holiday or Sunday puts you over 40 hours in a workweek, then your employer must pay you at time and one half of your regular rate of pay for those hours over 40. However, if your employer’s policy allows for payment of time and one half or double time, then the employer must honor the agreement. For more information, click here. 820 ILCS 105/4a (1).

Who is exempt from being paid overtime?

The following employees are exempt from overtime pay:

Salesmen and mechanics involved in selling or servicing cars, trucks or farm implements at dealerships,
agricultural labor,
government employees,
executive, administrative or professional employees as defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act,
certain employees involved in radio/television in a city with a population under 100,000,
commissioned employees defined by Section 7(i) of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
employees who exchange hours pursuant to a workplace exchange agreement,
employees of certain educational or residential child care institutions.
For further information, click here. 820 ILCS 105/4a (2).

How do I know if I qualify as an executive, administrative or professional employee?

The law provides that two tests must be fully met to determine if you are an executive, administrative or professional employee. First, as a general rule, you must be a salaried employee. For definition of salary, see question below. Second, the primary duties you perform must also be exempt. To determine if your primary duties meet the criteria outlined for the executive, administrative or professional employee, click here.

If I am paid on salary do I still qualify for overtime pay?

Possibly. You are paid a salary if you regularly receive each pay period on a weekly, or less frequent basis, a predetermined amount constituting all or part of your compensation, which amount is not subject to reduction because of variations in the quality or quantity of the work performed. However, an employee being paid on a salary basis is not automatically exempt from receiving overtime pay. The primary duties you perform must also be exempt to disqualify you from overtime pay. For more information, click here.

Can I be required to work overtime?

Yes, unless such work would violate the One Day Rest in Seven Act. For more information on this Act, click here. 820 ILCS 140/2.

Is "comp time" legal?

No. Compensatory time off in place of payment for overtime is not legal in the private sector.

If you believe you might be part of a class of employees forced to work off the clock or have othewise been denied overtime pay, DiTommaso-Lubin may be able to help your pursue your own overtime class action. For a free consultation on your rights as an employee, contact us today.

Our consumer rights private law firm handles individual and class action wage claim and other employee and consumer rights cases that government agencies and public interest law firms such as the Department of Labor may decide not pursue. Class action lawsuits our law firm has been involved in or spear-headed have led to substantial awards totalling over a million dollars to organizations including the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Consumer Law Center, and local law school consumer programs. DiTommaso-Lubin is proud of our achievements in assisting national and local consumer rights organizations obtain the funds needed to ensure that consumers are protected and informed of their rights. By standing up to employee and consumer fraud and rip-offs, and in the right case filing employee or consumer protection lawsuits and class-actions you too can help ensure that other emploment and consumers' rights are protected from unscrupulous, illegal or dishonest practices.

Our Naperville, Evanston, Aurora, Waukegan, Arlington Heights, Elgin, Elmhurst, Joliet, Elgin, Woodridge, Naperville, Highland Park, Northbrook, Wilmette, Wheaton, Oak Brook, Lombard, Hinsdale and Chicago fair labor and unpaid overtime lawyers and attorneys provide assistance in wage claims, fair debt collection, consumer fraud and consumer and employment rights cases including in Illinois and throughout the country. You can click here to see a description of the some of the many individual and class-action consumer cases we have handled. A video of our lawsuit which helped ensure more fan friendly security at Wrigley Field can be found here. You can contact one of our Chicago area employee rights or consumer protection lawyers who can assist in wage claim, lemon law, unfair debt collection, junk fax, prerecorded telephone solicitations, and other employment, unfair wage, consumer, consumer fraud or consumer class action cases by filling out the contact form at the side of this blog or by clicking here.

The United States Department of Labor has an excellent website which provides detailed information on fair labor laws including the requirement that employers pay time and half for overtime work for non-exempt employees.

The website is located here. With regard to federal overtime laws, the website states:

Overtime Pay

An employer who requires or permits an employee to work overtime is generally required to pay the employee premium pay for such overtime work. Employees covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) must receive overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek of at least one and one-half times their regular rates of pay. The FLSA does not require overtime pay for work on Saturdays, Sundays, holidays, or regular days of rest, unless overtime hours are worked on such days.

The website contains links to question and answer pages on overtime laws:

FairPay Web Site The Department of Labor has revised and clarified the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The FairPay site contains helpful fact sheets explaining these changes and also includes the revised regulations and an online training program to make this transition easy for employers and employees.

FairPay Fact Sheets By Occupation
Consult these fact sheets for specific information about changes to overtime pay in your occupation.

FairPay Fact Sheets By Exemption
Consult these fact sheets for specific information about changes to overtime pay for certain exempt employees.

Fact Sheet on the Overtime Pay Requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) (PDF)
Provides general information concerning the application of the overtime pay provisions of the FLSA.

"When Is Overtime Due?"
Information about overtime.

"Is Extra Pay Required For Weekend Or Night Work?"
Additional information about overtime pay.

"When Is Double Time Due?"
Additional information about overtime pay.

Handy Reference Guide to the Fair Labor Standards Act
Answers many questions about the FLSA and gives information about certain occupations that are exempt from the Act.

Coverage Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Fact Sheet
General information about who is covered by the FLSA.

If you believe you might be part of a class of employees forced to work off the clock or have othewise been denied overtime pay, DiTommaso-Lubin may be able to help your pursue your own overtime class action. For a free consultation on your rights as an employee, contact us today.

Our consumer rights private law firm handles individual and class action wage claim and other employee and consumer rights cases that government agencies and public interest law firms such as the Department of Labor may decide not pursue. Class action lawsuits our law firm has been involved in or spear-headed have led to substantial awards totalling over a million dollars to organizations including the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Consumer Law Center, and local law school consumer programs. DiTommaso-Lubin is proud of our achievements in assisting national and local consumer rights organizations obtain the funds needed to ensure that consumers are protected and informed of their rights. By standing up to employee and consumer fraud and rip-offs, and in the right case filing employee or consumer protection lawsuits and class-actions you too can help ensure that other emploment and consumers' rights are protected from unscrupulous, illegal or dishonest practices.

Our Naperville, Evanston, Aurora, Waukegan, Arlington Heights, Downers Grove, Elmhurst, Joliet, Elgin, Highland Park, Northbrook, Wilmette, Wheaton, Oak Brook, and Chicago fair labor and unpaid overtime lawyers and attorneys provide assistance in wage claims, fair debt collection, consumer fraud and consumer and employment rights cases including in Illinois and throughout the country. You can click here to see a description of the some of the many individual and class-action consumer cases we have handled. A video of our lawsuit which helped ensure more fan friendly security at Wrigley Field can be found here. You can contact one of our Chicago area employee rights or consumer protection lawyers who can assist in wage claim, lemon law, unfair debt collection, junk fax, prerecorded telephone solicitations, and other employment, unfair wage, consumer, consumer fraud or consumer class action cases by filling out the contact form at the side of this blog or by clicking here.

In a proposed class action insurance fraud lawsuit, the Illinois First District Court of Appeal has ruled that a former client may sue an insurance broker for inflating the cost of its insurance policies with “kickbacks.” DOD Technologies v. Mesirow Insurance Services Inc., No. 1-06-3300 (Ill. 1st Feb. 14, 2008). Plaintiff DOD Technologies sued Mesirow Insurance Services Inc., its insurance broker, after learning that Mesirow took contingency fees from insurance companies for steering clients toward those companies.

In its complaint, DOD said it provided confidential information to Mesirow, expecting the broker to get DOD the best price it could for insurance. But in addition to its commission from DOD, Mesirow also received “contingent commissions” from insurance companies, which were payments based on the amount of business it directed to the insurer, the number of renewals and how many losses the insurer had suffered from those clients. The payments were not disclosed to customers, DOD alleged, and created a conflict of interests for Mesirow. They also violated a part of the Illinois Insurance Code that require insurance brokers to disclose fees not directly related to premiums.

DOD sued Mesirow for breach of fiduciary duty, consumer fraud, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment and accounting. The complaint alleged that Mesirow steered customers to insurers who paid kickbacks, regardless of whether those insurers offered the best price, inflating the cost of insurance. The trial court dismissed three of DOD’s counts because the Insurance Code precludes breach of fiduciary duty claims and two others because it found no proof that DOD suffered damages or relied on the fraudulent concealment. DOD appealed.

The First District started with the breach of fiduciary duty count, which Mesirow alleged was precluded by provisions of the Insurance Code barring most breach of fiduciary duty claims. The exception written into the law is when the insurance producer is accused of “the wrongful retention or misappropriation... of any money that was received as premiums, as a premium deposit, or as payment of a claim.” DOD contended that its complaint falls within that exception, while Mesirow argued that it refers only to diverting premium payments for wrongful ends. The appeals court sided with DOD, holding that directing a client to an insurance policy not in its best interests in exchange for undisclosed kickbacks falls under the definition of misappropriation of premiums.

Having reversed the trial court on the counts for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and accounting, the First District next turned to the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act claim. DOD alleged that it relied on Mesirow’s faulty information and thus paid excessive insurance premiums. However, the court noted, the Consumer Fraud Act requires that the plaintiff show actual damages. The record did not show that DOD would have done much differently if it had known of Mesirow’s alleged practices, the court wrote. Thus, the dismissal of the consumer fraud claim was affirmed.

Similarly, the court affirmed the dismissal of the fraudulent concealment complaint because DOD failed to show that it suffered actual damages. Finally, the court disposed of technical arguments raised by the plaintiff over alleged misconduct during discovery and in filings. In the end, the First District affirmed the dismissal of the Consumer Fraud Act and fraudulent concealment complaints, but reversed and remanded the other complaints for trial.

The consumer rights law firm of DiTommaso-Lubin handles consumer fraud complaints such as this one, both as individual actions and as national or Illinois class action lawsuits representing a large group of consumers with similar complaints. Our Chicago based insurance fraud attorneys and consumer lawyers help clients throughout the United States against insurance companies and others that inflated their premiums, failed to pay legitimate claims or otherwise took advantage of their relative lack of power. From offices near Wheaton, Ill., and Chicago, DiTommaso-Lubin represents clients throughout the Midwest and the United States. If you believe your insurance company has violated its own contract and you’re ready to fight back, please contact DiTommaso-Lubin online or call us toll-free at 1-877-990-4990.

In a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act class action, the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a bill collector’s failure to correctly break down a bill into principal and interest does not violate that Act. Wahl v. Midland Credit Management, No. 08-1517 (7th Cir. Feb. 23, 2009) was a class action lawsuit alleging that debt collectors violate the FDCPA when they send out bills that state the correct total amount but break down the charges incorrectly.

Plaintiff Barbara Wahl had just $66.98 on a credit card when she sustained a stroke and racked up much larger medical bills during a time when she couldn’t work. The credit card went unpaid and eventually, the balance was $1,149.09, mostly in interest and late fees. Midland purchased the debt in January of 2005 and started sending demand letters to Wahl. The letter at issue arrived April 15, 2005, listing both the “current balance” and “amount due” at $1,160.57. On the back side, it listed the “principal” as $1,149.09 and the “accrued interest” as $11.48. This was followed by a similar letter listing a higher interest. The letters construed the “principal” as the total value of the debt Midland had bought, including interest accrued with the original creditor.

Wahl filed a proposed class-action lawsuit in federal court for the Northern District of Illinois. One of her two claims was that Midland had violated the FDCPA by incorrectly stating that the principal on her account was $1,149.09 rather than breaking down the original principal, the original interest and the new interest. Debt collectors are not required by law to break down charges, it said -- but when they do, the law requires that the breakdown not contain false or misleading information. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court ruled in favor of Midland. Wahl appealed.

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit agreed. Wahl relied on language from the FDCPA prohibiting “[t]he false representation of... the character, amount, or legal status of any debt,” they said, and argued that this meant she need only show that the breakdown of charges was outright false. The court disagreed, saying it has consistently tested for violations of the act on whether the disputed action would mislead an unsophisticated consumer. If it would not, the court said, it cannot find a violation. Furthermore, the judges argued, Wahl’s argument that the statement was outright false is not correct because Midland’s breakdown of charges was perfectly correct in Midland’s eyes -- it had paid for $1,149.09 in debt and the interest it added was its own interest, not the original creditor’s.

The Seventh Circuit also said Wahl could not overcome the precedent it set in Barnes v. Advanced Call Center Technologies, LLC, 493 F.3d 838 (7th Cir. 2007). In that case, the court rejected an argument that a bill collector had violated the FDCPA by failing to state the total balance due, listing only the amount in collections. There, the court ruled that the correct amount of debt to list was the amount that the debt collector was seeking -- not that amount plus the amount owned by the original creditor. In both cases, the original creditor is irrelevant to the transaction at hand. “Wahl’s argument rests on empty semantics and conflicts with Barnes,” the Seventh wrote, and thus the summary judgment order was upheld.

DiTommaso-Lubin has an active practice in Fair Debt Collection Practices Act litigation, specializing in protecting consumers from illegal, misleading and harassing behavior by debt collectors. Our debt collection abuse lawyers are based in Chicago and Oak Brook, Illinois, but we help clients throughout the United States, in both individual lawsuits and class actions. If you’re being harassed by bill collectors or they are using fraud and deception to charge fees you don't owe, you don’t have to put up with it. For a free, confidential consultation, please contact us online or call us toll-free at 1-877-990-4990.

A very informative brochure just published by the Federal Trade Commission contains the following very useful questions and answers regarding the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act:

What debts are covered? Personal, family, and household debts are covered under the Act. This includes money owed for the purchase of an automobile, for medical care, or for charge accounts. Who is a debt collector? A debt collector is any person who regularly collects debts owed to others. This includes attorneys who collect debts on a regular basis. How may a debt collector contact you? A collector may contact you in person, by mail, telephone, telegram, or fax. However, a debt collector may not contact you at inconvenient times or places, such as before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m., unless you agree. A debt collector also may not contact you at work if the collector knows that your employer disapproves. Can you stop a debt collector from contacting you? You can stop a debt collector from contacting you by writing a letter to the collection agency telling them to stop. Once the agency receives your letter, they may not contact you again except to say there will be no further contact or to notify you that the debt collector or creditor intends to take some specific action. Please note, however, that sending such a letter to a collector does not make the debt go away if you actually owe it. You could still be sued by the debt collector or your original creditor. May a debt collector contact anyone else about your debt? If you have an attorney, the debt collector must contact the attorney, rather than you. If you do not have an attorney, a collector may contact other people, but only to find out where you live, what your phone number is, and where you work. Collectors usually are prohibited from contacting such third parties more than once. In most cases, the collector may not tell anyone other than you and your attorney that you owe money. What must the debt collector tell you about the debt? Within five days after you are first contacted, the collector must send you a written notice telling you the amount of money you owe; the name of the creditor to whom you owe the money; and what action to take if you believe you do not owe the money. May a debt collector continue to contact you if you believe you do not owe money? A collector may not contact you if, within 30 days after you receive the written notice, you send the collection agency a letter stating you do not owe money. However, a collector can renew collection activities if you are sent proof of the debt, such as a copy of a bill for the amount owed. What types of debt collection practices are prohibited? Harassment. Debt collectors may not harass, oppress, or abuse anyone or any third parties they contact. For example, debt collectors may not: • use threats of violence or harm; • publish a list of consumers who refuse to pay their debts (except to a credit bureau); • use obscene or profane language; or • repeatedly use the telephone to annoy someone; False statements. Debt collectors may not use any false statements when collecting a debt. For example, debt collectors may not: • falsely imply that they are attorneys or government representatives; • falsely imply that you have committed a crime; • falsely represent that they operate or work for a credit bureau; • misrepresent the amount of your debt; • indicate that papers being sent to you are legal forms when they are not; or • indicate that papers being sent to you are not legal forms when they are. Debt collectors also may not state that: • you will be arrested if you do not pay your debt; • they will seize, garnish, attach, or sell your property or wages, unless the collection agency or creditor intends to do so, and it is legal to do so; or • actions, such as a lawsuit, will be taken against you, which legally may not be taken, or which they do not intend to take. Debt collectors may not: • give false credit information about you to anyone, including a credit bureau; • send you anything that looks like an official document from a court or government agency when it is not; or • use a false name. Unfair practices. Debt collectors may not engage in unfair practices when they try to collect a debt. For example, collectors may not: • collect any amount greater than your debt, unless your state law permits such a charge; • deposit a post-dated check prematurely; • use deception to make you accept collect calls or pay for telegrams; • take or threaten to take your property unless this can be done legally; or • contact you by postcard. What control do you have over payment of debts? If you owe more than one debt, any payment you make must be applied to the debt you indicate. A debt collector may not apply a payment to any debt you believe you do not owe. What can you do if you believe a debt collector violated the law? You have the right to sue a collector in a state or federal court within one year from the date from the date the law was violated. If you win, you may recover money for the damages you suffered plus an additional amount up to $1000. Court costs and attorneys fees also can be recovered. A group of people also may sue a debt collector and recover money for damages up to $500,000, or one percent of the collectors net worth, whichever is less.

Our consumer rights private law firm handles individual and class action unfair debt collection and other consumer fraud cases that government agencies and public interest law firms such as the FTC may not pursue. Class action lawsuits our law firm has been involved in or spear-headed have led to substantial awards totalling over a million dollars to organizations including the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Consumer Law Center, and local law school consumer programs. DiTommaso-Lubin is proud of our achievements in assisting national and local consumer rights organizations obtain the funds needed to ensure that consumers are protected and informed of their rights. By standing up to consumer fraud and consumer rip-offs, and in the right case filing consumer protection lawsuits and class-actions you too can help ensure that other consumers' rights are protected from consumer rip-offs and unscrupulous or dishonest practices.

Our Naperville, Aurora, Waukegan, Joliet, Elgin, Highland Park, Northbrook, Wilmette, Wheaton, Oak Brook, and Chicago consumer lawyers provide assistance in fair debt collection, consumer fraud and consumer rights cases including in Illinois and throughout the country. You can click here to see a description of the some of the many individual and class-action consumer cases we have handled. A video of our lawsuit which helped ensure more fan friendly security at Wrigley Field can be found here. You can contact one of our Chicago area consumer protection lawyers who can assist in lemon law, unfair debt collection, junk fax, prerecorded telephone solicitations, and other consumer, consumer fraud or consumer class action cases by filling out the contact form at the side of this blog or by clicking here.

DiTommaso-Lubin is pleased to announce that we are part of a large auto dealer fraud class action lawsuit that recently survived a dismissal motion in the Eastern District of Michigan. In Re: OnStar Contract Litigation is a proposed class action consolidating lawsuits from around the nation against OnStar Corporation and four automakers that include the company’s technology in their new vehicles.

Along with other attorneys, our auto dealer fraud lawyers represent consumers who purchased vehicles with a version of OnStar that relies on analog cellular phone technology. The FCC voted in 2002 to phase out that technology and replace it with digital by Feb. 18, 2008. The “sunset period” was intended to allow companies time to phase out products based on analog technology and replace them with digital products. Nonetheless, our consolidated suit alleges, OnStar and the car manufacturers continued to sell analog OnStar to consumers allegedly without notifying them of the phase-out. When allegedly it did belatedly inform analog customers that their product would no longer work, it offered them a chance to pay for an upgrade to digital technology.

The case was consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. On Feb. 19, 2009, the court considered the defendants’ motions to dismiss. In its opinion and order, the court started by rejecting the defendants’ request for a choice-of-law determination, saying it is inappropriate to make a choice this early. Thus, it declined to consider motions related to choice of law. However, it did order limited discovery on the choice of law to allow the court to determine class certification.

The court then turned to challenges to the complaint itself. First, it dismissed claims under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act on the grounds that no named plaintiffs live or purchased their vehicles in Michigan. Next, it considered claims based on consumer protection statutes in all states where plaintiffs reside. Defendants challenged some of these as untimely, since the statute of limitations had run; plaintiffs countered that the statute should be tolled due to fraudulent concealment and a discovery rule should be applied. More importantly, the plaintiffs alleged that this should be decided after discovery, in a summary judgment motion. The court agreed and declined to dismiss those claims.

OnStar separated from other defendants to move to dismiss on the grounds that state consumer protection laws require more particular allegations of fraud than had been stated by the plaintiffs. The court rejected this argument, noting that the Sixth Circuit has rejected a strict reading of the fair notice requirement. The complaint itself should be sufficient to allow defendants to file an answer. It also rejected the argument that OnStar is not an appropriate defendant because the plaintiffs didn’t show that there was a true joint venture between them and the auto manufacturer defendants. There is no heightened standard for this, the court noted, and it is not appropriate to resolve at the pleadings stage.

The court next considered arguments for dismissal involving individual plaintiffs and their individual states’ consumer protection laws. With one exception, the court rejected all of the defendants’ arguments. In most cases, it found the caselaw cited insufficient. Nor did providing a pamphlet about OnStar sufficiently defeat the claim that OnStar failed to disclose the analog phase-out, as Subaru argued, the court said. However, the court did grant a dismissal as to two plaintiffs in the state of New York, because the applicable statute there bars plaintiffs from seeking exemplary or minimum damages in a class action.

Likewise, the court granted the motion to dismiss on the plaintiffs’ breach of express warranty claim. Express warranties come with time or mileage limitations, the court noted, and many of the plaintiffs have already exceeded those limitations. The defendants cited several cases in support of its position, and the court found plaintiffs’ arguments that there were other express warranties unconvincing. Thus, where vehicles have fulfilled the term of their express warranties before the scheduled analog phase-out on Feb. 18, 2008, the court said this claim must fail.

Finally, the court declined to rule on motions to dismiss claims based on breach of implied warranty and thus the federal Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act, because they require a choice of law that it found inappropriate at this stage. Thus, the dismissal motions were granted in part and denied in part and set for limited discovery.

DiTommaso-Lubin is proud to be a part of this auto-fraud class action lawsuit. Our firm regularly handles consumer fraud and consumer protection individual and class-action litigation, including lawsuits over defective products, “lemon” cars, trucks and RVs, deceptive advertising, billing fraud and debt collector abuses. Based in Chicago and Oak Brook, Illinois, near Wheaton, we defend consumers’ rights throughout the Midwest and the United States. If you’re ready to fight back against unfair and deceptive business practices, we offer free, confidential consultations. To set one up, you can contact us online or call toll-free at 1-877-990-4990.

One of the best websites especially for lawyers to learn about consumer law issues and to review first rate legal briefs prepared by the top attorneys in the country who specialize in consumer rights issues is the website of Trial Lawyers for Public Justice.

The website contains a section with briefs prepared by Trial Lawyers for Public Justice on a number of important consumer law issues that have nation impact. You can click here to look at that section and read any of the briefs contained in that section. The website also has a page with descriptions of some key cases and landmark consumer rights victories by Trial Lawyers for Public Justice.

Our consumer rights private law firm handles individual and class action cases that government agencies and public interest law firms such as Trial Lawyers for Public Justice may not be able to pursue. Class action lawsuits our firm has been involved in or spear-headed have led to substantial awards totalling over a million dollars to organizations including the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Consumer Law Center, and local law school consumer programs. DiTommaso-Lubin is proud of our achievements in assisting national and local consumer rights organizations obtain the funds needed to ensure that consumers are protected and informed of their rights. By standing up to consumer fraud and consumer rip-offs, and in the right case filing consumer protection lawsuits and class-actions you too can help ensure that other consumers' rights are protected from corporate misdeeds.

Our Naperville, Aurora, Waukegan, Joliet, Northbrook, Wilmette, Wheaton, Oak Brook, and Chicago consumer attorneys provide assistance in consumer fraud and consumer rights cases including in Illinois and throughout the country. You can click here to see a description of the some of the many individual and class-action consumer cases we have handled. A video of our lawsuit which helped ensure more fan friendly security at Wrigley Field can be found here. You can contact one of our Chicago area consumer protection lawyers here who can assist in lemon law, unfair debt collection, junk fax, prerecorded telephone solicitations, and other consumer, consumer fraud or consumer class action cases by filling out the contact form at the side of this blog or by clicking here.

As business litigators and class action defense attorneys in Illinois, we recently noted an appellate decision on the subject favorable to the defense. An insurance policy that excludes coverage for "professional services" does not cover damages in a junk fax class action, the Second District Court of Appeal has decided. Westport Insurance Corporation v. Jackson National Life Insurance Company, No. 2-07-1205 (Ill. 2nd Dec. 19, 2008).

Stonecrafters, Inc. is the lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit over unsolicited faxes sent by Handleman Insurance Agency, Inc. Handleman sells health insurance policies as an agent for Jackson National Life Insurance Company. Jackson, in turn, has liability insurance from Westport Insurance Corporation. After Stonecrafters settled its suit with Handleman, Handleman assigned its insurance rights to the class, including its insurance from Westport (through Jackson). Westport then filed for a declaratory judgment that these damages are not covered by its contract. The contract covers losses "for damages... arising out of the conduct of the business of the insured agent in rendering services for others as a licensed... health insurance agent."

Westport argued that the faxes -- which advertised group health insurance -- did not constitute business activities of an insurance agent. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment in its favor. Stonecrafters appealed, saying the advertisement was a service to clients and should therefore be covered. The Second District disagreed. It used an analogy to a Texas case, Atlantic Lloyd's Insurance Co. of Texas v. Susman Godfrey, L.L.P., 982 S.W.2d 472 (Tex. App. 1998), in which the insurer disputed coverage for a law firm that had allegedly defamed a doctor in its advertising. The Texas court found that the letter did not constitute "professional services" as used in the firm's insurance policy because no legal advice or services were provided.

Similarly, the court wrote, Handleman did not provide any professional services as an insurance broker in its faxes. It pointed out that the professional services of an insurance agent are specialized knowledge of the insurance market and how it applies to the customer. By contrast, the fax was a general advertisement that specifically said actual premiums vary from group to group. "The mere offer to perform a professional service is not a professional service in its own right," the court wrote, and thus it affirmed the trial court's summary judgment ruling.

DiTommaso-Lubin's business litigation attorneys handle class action defense for businesses as well as general Illinois contract disputes, including insurance coverage disputes. With offices in Chicago and its outskirts, near Oak Brook, Wheaton and Naperville, Ill., we represent clients in Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin and throughout the United States. If you need help protecting your legal rights in a business dispute and would like to learn more about our services, please contact us today for a confidential consultation.

If you believe you are the victim of a consumer fraud or scam that is harming many other individuals you should file a report with the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC maintains a Consumer Sentinel database which can be used by law enforcement authorities all over the world to fight consumer fraud. Click here if you want to learn more about that database or want to make a complaint with the FTC.

The FTC has this to say about its Consumer Sentinel database:

Your complaints can help us detect patterns of wrong-doing, and lead to investigations and prosecutions. The FTC enters all complaints it receives into Consumer Sentinel, a secure online database that is used by thousands of civil and criminal law enforcement authorities worldwide. The FTC does not resolve individual consumer complaints.

The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop, and avoid them.

If you are a victim of consumer fraud, unfair debt collection practices, or purchased a lemon automobile, rv or boat our Illinois based consumer fraud and class-action private sector lawyers may be able to assist you obtaining redress if the FTC, Illinois Attorney General or other government agency is unable to help you get your money back.

Class action lawsuits our firm has been involved in or spear-headed have led to very large consumer recoveries and in addition substantial awards totalling over a million dollars going to national and local consumer rights organizations including the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Consumer Law Center, and local law school consumer programs. DiTommaso-Lubin is proud of our achievements in assisting national and local consumer organizations and law school legal aid clinics obtain the funds needed to ensure that consumers are protected and informed of their rights. By standing up to consumer fraud and consumer rip-offs, and in the right case filing consumer protection lawsuits and class-actions you too can help ensure that other consumers' rights are protected from corporate misdeeds.

Our Naperville, Waukegan, Wilmette,Wheaton, Oak Brook, and Chicago consumer attorneys provide assistance in consumer fraud and consumer rights cases including in Illinois and throughout the country. You can click here to see a description of the some of the many individual and class-action consumer cases we have handled. A video of our lawsuit which helped ensure more fan friendly security at Wrigley Field can be found here. You can contact one of our Chicago area consumer protection lawyers here who can assist in lemon law, tele-marketing fraud, infomercial scams and frauds, unfair debt collection, junk fax, pre-recorded telephone solicitations, and other consumer, consumer fraud or consumer class action cases by filling out the contact form at the side of this blog or by clicking here.

One of the best websites to learn about junk fax law issues and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and to find lawyers in your region who specialize in junk fax lawsuits is the website of TCPALaw.com.

The website contains comprehensive information about the TCPA and junk fax case law and lawsuits. There is no better place on the internet to learn about the TCPA and junk fax issues.

Our firm has actively pursued junk fax class action and individual cases for a number of years. We have sucessfully prosecuted and settled junk fax class-actions resulting in subtantial settlements for the victims who have had the opportunity to collect much of their statutory damages through a claims process. We are currently prosecuting and investigating class actions in Chicago, Maryland and throughout the country involving violations of statutory privacy rights involving other federal statutes such as the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA").

Other consumer class action lawsuits our firm has been involved in or spear-headed have led to substantial awards totalling over a million dollars to organizations including the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Consumer Law Center, and local law school consumer programs. DiTommaso-Lubin is proud of our achievements in assisting national and local consumer rights organizations obtain the funds needed to ensure that consumers are protected and informed of their rights. By standing up to consumer fraud and consumer rip-offs, and in the right case filing consumer protection lawsuits and class-actions you too can help ensure that other consumers' rights are protected from corporate misdeeds.

Our Naperville, Aurora, Joliet, Wheaton, Waukegan, Oak Brook, and Chicago consumer attorneys provide assistance in consumer fraud and consumer rights cases including in Illinois and throughout the country. You can click here to see a description of the some of the many individual and class-action consumer cases we have handled. A video of our lawsuit which helped ensure more fan friendly security at Wrigley Field can be found here. You can contact one of our Chicago area consumer protection lawyers here who can assist in lemon law, unfair debt collection, junk fax, prerecorded telephone solicitations, and other consumer, consumer fraud or consumer class action cases by filling out the contact form at the side of this blog or by clicking here.

One of the best websites to learn about consumer law issues and to find lawyers who specialize in consumer rights issues is the website of the National Association of Consumer Advocates.

The website contains numerous links to sections on Auto Fraud, Lemon Law, Predatory Lending Practices, Credit Reporting Problems and Debt Collection Abuse.

Class action lawsuits our firm has been involved in or spear-headed have led to substantial awards totalling over a million dollars to organizations including the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Consumer Law Center, and local law school consumer programs. DiTommaso-Lubin is proud of our achievements in assisting national and local consumer rights organizations obtain the funds needed to ensure that consumers are protected and informed of their rights. By standing up to consumer fraud and consumer rip-offs, and in the right case filing consumer protection lawsuits and class-actions you too can help ensure that other consumers' rights are protected from corporate misdeeds.

Our Naperville, Wheaton, Oak Brook, and Chicago consumer attorneys provide assistance in consumer fraud and consumer rights cases including in Illinois and throughout the country. You can click here to see a description of the some of the many individual and class-action consumer cases we have handled. A video of our lawsuit which helped ensure more fan friendly security at Wrigley Field can be found here. You can contact one of our Chicago area consumer protection lawyers here who can assist in lemon law, unfair debt collection, junk fax, prerecorded telephone solicitations, and other consumer, consumer fraud or consumer class action cases by filling out the contact form at the side of this blog or by clicking here.

In a consumer fraud class action, the Fifth District Court of Appeal has ruled that consumers may sue over a manufacturer's intentional suppression of important facts, even when when disclosure of the hidden information would have alerted the consumer to the product's dangers and caused the consumer not to purchase the product. In De Bouse v. Bayer, 5-06-0077 (Oct. 9, 2008), plaintiff Teresa De Bouse filed a proposed class action against pharmaceutical companies Bayer and GlaxoSmithKline, as well as several individuals, alleging that they violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act by intentionally concealing information casting doubt on the safety and efficacy of the statin drug Baycor.

This is actually the second appellate decision in De Bouse; the Illinois Supreme Court had returned it to the appeals court with instructions to reconsider it in light of a contemporary decision on the Consumer Fraud Act called Barbara's Sales v. Intel Corp., 227 Ill. 2d 45, 879 N.E.2d 910 (2007). In that case, the state Supreme Court held that claims that a product was "the best" was "puffing" (routine exaggeration by advertisers) and did not amount to deception. Thus, a deceptive advertising campaign was not enough to violate the Consumer Fraud Act in this case, the Supreme Court ruled. The Fifth District, on remand, pointed out that while the drug makers were accused of a deceptive advertising campaign, their campaign was not "puffing" and involved alleged suppression of material facts so Barbara's Sales did not apply.

The original appeal to the appeals court came with three certified questions:
1. May a consumer who bought a drug that was later recalled for safety reasons bring a Consumer Fraud Act case, even if she was not directly marketed to?
2. Is offering a drug for sale an implicit representation that it's safe, under Illinois law, such that the manufacturer is liable under the Consumer Fraud Act?
3. Are omissions or fraudulent statements, made to a third party but intended to influence a consumer's decisions, enough to support a Consumer Fraud Act claim?

On remand, the appeals court pointed out that the drug makers in this case are accused of indirect deception -- that is, deception of a decision-maker that the plaintiff trusted, her doctor -- and deception by silence or concealment. The state Supreme Court has ruled that both are forms of fraud under the Consumer Fraud Act, the appeals court said, and thus it can answer yes to questions one and three. It declined to answer question two because it mixes questions of fact and law, which is impermissible under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 308(a). Finally, the appeals court denied the defendant's appeal of class certification as untimely, despite a clerical error that delayed notice of the certification. The remainder of the case was remanded to the trial court. Justice Welch, dissenting, argued that defendants should have been granted summary judgment because the plaintiff has admitted that she was not directly deceived.

Based in Chicago and Oak Brook, Ill., DiTommaso-Lubin protects consumers' rights in health care product fraud cases and class action lawsuits. If you've been harmed by a defective prescription drug or other health product and you'd like to learn more about your legal options, please contact our Chicago class action lawyers and consumer attorneys today for a free consultation.

The National Consumers League's Fraud Center is one of the best informational websites on the internet to learn about consumer rights and protection issues. Informed consumers are best armed to protect themselves from consumer scams and consumer frauds. The website contains sections for Telemarketing Fraud, Internet Fraud, Scams Against Businesses, Scams Against Elderly, Counterfeit Drugs, and a Fraud News section.

DiTommaso-Lubin is a private consumer rights law firm who associates with other law firms around the country that can help you recover funds lost due to fraud against brick and mortar companies in the United States with assets. All too often with many internet and telemarketing frauds this may not be possible as the scam artists may be overseas, hard to locate or without assets.

Class action lawsuits our firm has been involved in or spear-headed have led to substantial awards totalling over a million dollars to organizations including the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Consumer Law Center, and local law school consumer programs. DiTommaso-Lubin is proud of our achievements in assisting national and local consumer rights organizations obtain the funds needed to ensure that consumers are protected and informed of their rights. By standing up to consumer fraud and consumer rip-offs, and in the right case filing consumer protection lawsuits and class-actions you too can help ensure that other consumers' rights are protected from corporate misdeeds.

Our Naperville, Waukegan, Wilmette, Wheaton, Oak Brook, and Chicago consumer attorneys provide assistance in consumer fraud and consumer rights cases including in Illinois and throughout the country. You can click here to see a description of the some of the many individual and class-action consumer cases we have handled. A video of our lawsuit which helped ensure more fan friendly security at Wrigley Field can be found here. You can contact one of our Chicago area consumer protection lawyers here who can assist in lemon law, unfair debt collection, junk fax, prerecorded telephone solicitations, and other consumer, consumer fraud or consumer class action cases by filling out the contact form at the side of this blog or by clicking here.