Articles Posted in Class-Action

The argument between The Trump National Golf Club Jupiter and a class of 65 former members continues as the golf club has asked the Eleventh Circuit Court to overturn a ruling by the lower court that requires the golf club to pay approximately $5.7 million in refunded deposits to the former members.

The argument appears to hinge on when the members actually resigned their golf club membership. Prior to Trump’s purchase of the golf club, members paid a deposit, which was to be refunded to them upon the resignation of their membership. But the golf club was having financial troubles and was unable to pay all the resigning members their deposits.

So the club formed a resignation wait list, in which members who wanted to resign could continue using the golf club’s facilities as long as they continued paying their dues. When they reached the top of the list and enough new members had joined (generally five new members for each member on the resignation waitlist), the resignation could be made complete and their deposit refunded to them. Continue reading ›

It may be a first when class-action consumer litigation requires a Seventh Circuit panel to describe the step-by-step process of creating a Subway sandwich in a published opinion.

But that’s indeed what the court did in its recent ruling dismissing a class-action suit against the Subway fast-food chain; ham, provolone, pepper jack and all.

It all started in 2013 when an Australian teenager posted a photograph of his Subway “Footlong” sandwich next to a tape measure on his Facebook page. The sandwich measured only 11 inches. The post went viral and Subway customers in the U.S. began measuring their own sandwiches, and it was only a matter of time before the plaintiffs’ bar got in on the action.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers sued Subway, seeking damages and injunctive relief under state consumer-protection laws. The different cases were consolidated in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

Subway’s defense was that because of deviations in the baking process, some rolls would inevitably shrink to under 12 inches, but all customers still received the same quantity of ingredients and most customers still got to enjoy a foot-long sandwich. Continue reading ›

Even those of us who have come to terms with the fact that companies and advertisers track everything we do online aren’t ready to compromise their children’s privacy. In fact, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) is a federal law that was put in place specifically to do exactly what it sounds like: protect the privacy of children when they’re online.

But Disney, along with some of its software partners, allegedly violated this law by embedding trackers in some of the entertainment company’s most popular apps that tracked users’ information and allegedly distributed it to other companies and advertisers. As an entertainment company that primarily targets children, many of the users whose information is being tracked and disseminated are children aged 13 and younger.

The lawsuit lists dozens of popular Disney apps, including Cars Lightening League and Maleficent Free Fall, that, once downloaded, allowed the trackers embedded in the apps to collect the information and then extract it from the smart devices so it could be disseminated for commercial purposes – all without the knowledge or consent of the children’s parents, the lawsuit claims.

According to Jeffrey Chester, the executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, Disney should not be using the software companies listed in the complaint. He says they involve heavy-duty technologies designed to track and monetize information on people, and as such, should not be working with a company that targets young children. Continue reading ›

The bait and switch tactic of selling goods and services is a trick as old as time, but it’s not always legal. If a customer signs a contract agreeing to pay a particular price for something, it is expected that the price will not change for the duration of the contract, unless both parties agree to the change in writing. That change can happen, either as an amendment to the contract, or as part of a new contract.

According to a federal class action consumer lawsuit that was recently filed in California, Comcast allegedly lured new cable customers with promises of low rates, which they then jacked up without warning or gaining consent from their customers. The fees in question are: the “Broadcast TV Fee,” which allegedly went from $1.50/month in 2014 to $6.50/month in 2016; and the “Regional Sports Fee,” which allegedly went from $1/month in 2015 to $4.50 in 2016.

When customers complained to Comcast, they were allegedly told by company representatives that the fees were government-related taxes or fees over which the company said it had no control – an assertion the plaintiffs claim is a blatant lie.

Comcast asked the court to dismiss all the claims put forth by the plaintiffs, saying its online order submission process was not enough to constitute a legally-binding contract. On the other hand, the Subscriber Agreement and Minimum Term Agreement were binding contracts in which the customers had allegedly agreed to pay Comcast’s fees.

Judge Vince Chhabria, of the U.S. District Court of Northern California, rejected Comcast’s motion to dismiss, saying that, by submitting their order, Comcast customers were agreeing to pay Comcast’s advertised prices, in addition to government-related taxes and fees. Chhabria denied Comcast’s assertion that consumers agreed to its higher fees in the Subscriber Agreement. As far as the Minimum Term Agreement was concerned, the plaintiffs allege they never saw it when submitting their order, in which case they cannot be bound by its terms. Chhabria said the plaintiffs had plausibly asserted that they never saw the agreement, although determining it in fact will have to be left to the more in-depth analysis of a summary judgment. Continue reading ›

The Seventh Circuit has again rejected a pick-off attempt in a class action overturning a dismissal that approved use of that tactic.

Just because someone offers to make a payment to settle a legal dispute does not mean the payee is required to accept the payment. Nor does the offer of payment (or deposit made to the court) negate the existence of the legal dispute. Nevertheless, that’s exactly what Bisco Inc. tried to claim after Fulton Dental, LLC filed a putative class action lawsuit against the dental company.

Fulton sued Bisco for allegedly violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending unsolicited fax messages about dental products. Fulton sued on behalf of itself and all those similarly situated who received unsolicited fax messages from Bisco (for which Fulton was therefore made to pay). But before Fulton had a chance to file a motion to certify its class of plaintiffs, Bisco offered to pay Fulton about $3,000 in order to settle the dispute. Fulton refused, but Bisco made a deposit to the court of $3,600 and claimed that settled the whole matter.

The Seventh Circuit Court disagreed, going off the Supreme Court’s 2016 in Campbell-Ewald, in which the Supreme Court rejected the assertion that an offer to pay the plaintiff’s damages in full did not render the class action lawsuit moot under Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

However, in its written opinion, the Supreme Court did note that, by making the ruling in this particular case, the Court was not trying to rule in any other legal disputes of a similar nature. Bisco took that to mean the deposit it made to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals was still a valid method of ending its legal dispute with Fulton Dental. Continue reading ›