To Get In, Push Buttons, or Maybe Swipe a Magnet
By JOHN SCHWARTZ
Published: March 26, 2011
A lawsuit argues that push-button locks are easily, and discreetly, foiled, accuse Kaba of deceptive trade practices, common-law fraud, negligence and product liability.
To read the full article click here.
You can link to a video showing how easily Kaba locks allegedly can be by-passed with a magent at this blog site by clicking here.
The Chicago Tribune Reports that aggressive debt collectors are clogging the Cook Courts with many new debt claims and that their poor record keeping practices and other missteps are resulting in judgments sometimes entering for debts that have already been repaid. You can read the full article by clicking here.
Although it is a bit hokey the below video provides useful information on various well worn automobile dealer scams and tricks and how consumers can avoid them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n3-U35G7Tg
If you have already fallen victim to any of these scams our Chicago lemon law and auto fraud lawyers may be able to assist you.
The Illinois Trial Lawyers Association and the National Association of Consumer Advocates filed an amicus or friend of the Court brief before Illinois’s First District Appellate Court in an appeal in a consumer fraud and breach of contract class action DiTommaso Lubin is prosecuting. The brief explains why the right to pursue class actions is so important to consumers who cannot afford an attorney to correct small frauds or unfair practices which can result in Defendants reaping large gains. The brief states:
Another significant statement that appears in the defendant’s brief is the following:
“If the Circuit Court ruling is reversed, it is highly likely this case will be settled, given the low dollar value of Plaintiff’s individual claim for damages and the fact that the Plaintiff has no evidence that any other Advance customer allegedly also misunderstood the Governement Required Processing Fee. …As to the statement that if the class certification decision is reversed, it is highly likely the case will be settled, given the low dollar value of the plaintiff’s individual claim. This is precisely why this claim needs to proceed as a class action.
As pointed out by Judge Posner, a defendant who resists a class action by stating that there are a multitude of class members makes no argument at all. “The more claimants there are, the more likely a class action is to yield substantial economies in litigation. It would hardly be an improvement to have in lieu of this single class action, 17 million suits, each seeking damages of $15 to $30 . . . The realistic alternative to a class action is not 17 million individual suits, but zero individual suits, as only a lunatic or a fanatic sues for $30. But a class action has to be unwieldy indeed before it can be pronounced an inferior alternative – no matter how massive the fraud or other wrongdoing that will go unpunished if class treatment is denied – to no litigation at all.” Carnegie v. Household International Inc., 376 F.3d 656, 661 (7th Cir. 2004) (emphasis in original).
The courts developed the class action device to handle cases like this one. “The policy at the very core of the class action mechanism is to overcome the problem that small recoveries do not provide the incentive for any individual to bring a solo action prosecuting his or her rights. A class action solves this problem by aggregating the relatively paltry potential recoveries into something worth someone’s (usually an attorney’s) labor.” Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 617 (1997) (quoting Mace v. Van Ru Credit Corp., 109 F.3d 338, 344 (7th Cir. 1997).
The Defendant has tipped its hand in its statement that the case will settle if the court reverses class certification. This is because if the court reverses class certification the defendant will pay off the Plaintiff by refunding the small sum of money it managed to take from it …
To review the full brief click here
The purchase of land is a complex and multi-layered process that presents many opportunities for not only misunderstandings and mistakes, but also fraud and misrepresentations. DiTommaso Lubin has many attorneys who focus on handling consumer fraud cases, so we are always tracking developments in that field of the law. Chultem v. Ticor Title Insurance is a recent Illinois appellate decision concerning title insurance agent kickbacks in the sale of real properties here in Illinois.
Chultem v. Ticor Title Insurance began as two separate class-actions that were consolidated into one case. In both cases, however, Plaintiffs purchased a parcel of land that also included the purchase of a title insurance policy from Defendants. Plaintiffs were sold the title insurance by an attorney agent who also represented one or more of the parties in the real estate transactions in question. Defendants, as title insurance companies, paid these lawyer agents an additional sum “over and above the attorney fees” paid to them by their clients (who were parties to the transaction).
Plaintiffs filed suit because Defendants paid the attorney agents based upon “the amount of insurance premiums generated from the referred clients” instead of for the services that the lawyers actually performed in their role as title insurance agents. In doing so, Plaintiffs alleged that in doing so, Defendants violated the Title Insurance Act and the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. Plaintiffs sought to certify a class, but the lower court denied certification because it would not be possible to determine across the board liability. Plaintiffs then filed an appeal.
On appeal, the Court addressed Defendants’ argument that a transaction-by-transaction analysis would be required in order to determine liability, and as such common issues could not predominate as required for class certification. The Court did not find Defendants’ arguments persuasive, however, because the agreement between the attorney agents and Defendants provided for a pro forma commitment. The Court went on to reason that if Plaintiffs are able to show that the agreements were pro forma and that the agents received full compensation as insurance agents, then liability for all claims could be established. Therefore the Court reversed the lower court ruling and remanded the case consistent with the finding that the Plaintiffs had satisfied the predominance requirement for class-certification.
Consumer Law and Policy Blog reports:
In a closely watched case, the California Supreme Court on Thursday issued a decision preserving the broad availability of the state’s principal consumer protection laws in cases involving mislabeled goods.The question at issue in Kwikset v. Superior Court (Benson) was whether a consumer who has bought a product that was mislabeled — a “union-made” shirt that was in fact manufactured in a sweatshop, “organic” produce that was grown with pesticides, or (as in this case) a “Made in the USA” lockset that had actually been partly manufactured in Taiwan and Mexico — may bring suit under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and the False Advertising Law (FAL). Proposition 64, passed by referendum in 2004, inserted in both laws a requirement that a private plaintiff have “lost money or property.” But what if the product the customer received was perfectly functional even if it wasn’t what the customer had ordered? Was there still a loss of money or property? The Court of Appeal thought not: since the item received was of equal value, plaintiffs had not “lost money” and therefore could not bring a claim under the UCL or FAL.
The California Supreme Court, however, disagreed. The Supreme Court held that neither the language nor the logic of Prop 64 precluded suits by consumers who did not get what they paid for. “Plaintiffs who can truthfully allege they were deceived by a product’s label into spending money to purchase the product, and would not have purchased it otherwise, have ‘lost money or property’ within the meaning of Proposition 64 and have standing to sue.” It doesn’t matter that to some other people, or by some objective measure, the mislabeled product is worth as much as the one the consumer expected. What matters is the consumer’s subjective valuation.
Chicago Business Litigation Lawyer Blog