Articles Posted in Consumer Fraud/Consumer Protection

|

Plaintiff seeks damages from Defendants under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, including punitive damages, which are expressly recoverable under the Act. 815 ILCS 505/10a.

Illinois courts mandate allowing for punitive damages net-worth-related discovery, when, such damages are available as a matter of law. In Pickering v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 265 Ill. App. 3d 806, 823-24 (5th Dist. 1994), the Court stated:

It is well settled that evidence of a defendant’s net worth and pecuniary position may be introduced in a case in which punitive damages is an issue (citation omitted). No Illinois case, of which we are aware, limits the scope of financial discovery relating to punitive damages.

Similarly, in Cripe v. Leiter, 291 Ill.App.3d 155, 160 (3d Dist. 1997), the Appellate Court affirmed a contempt order against a Defendant who had argued that his personal income tax returns were not discoverable because they were inadmissible and irrelevant.

Net worth evidence is discoverable and may be admitted at trial to set punitive damages commensurate with a defendant’s wealth so that it is sufficient to adequately punish it. Tague v. Molitor Motor Co., 139 Ill. App. 3d 313, 318 (5th Dist. 1985) ($17,000 in punitive damages arising from $1,000 in actual damages was justified due to defendant’s net worth). The financial status of the defendant is important and relevant because an amount sufficient to punish one individual may be trivial to another. The amount of the award “should send a message loud enough to be heard but not so loud as to deafen the listener.” Dubey v. Pub. Storage, Inc., 395 Ill. App. 3d 342, 359, 918 N.E.2d 265, 281–82 (1st Dist. 2009). For that reason, a “plaintiff seeking punitive damages is entitled to engage in discovery relating to the defendant’s financial worth in advance of trial.” N. Dakota Fair Hous. Council, Inc. v. Allen, 298 F. Supp. 2d 897, 899 (D.N.D. 2004). Continue reading ›

|

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) imposes liability for calling or texting cellular phone numbers using an Automatic Telephone Dialing System (ATDS) without sufficient prior express consent. The TCPA defines an ATDS as “equipment which has the capacity (A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers.” The TCPA creates a private cause of action and allows a plaintiff to recover statutory penalties of $500 per call or text in violation, or up to $1,500 for a knowing or willful violation. These statutory penalties have made the TCPA a useful tool for class-action plaintiffs’ attorneys seeking to hold companies liable for calls and texts over a four year statute of limitations period.

The Ninth Circuit has traditionally taken an expansive approach when defining what does and doesn’t qualify as an ATDS, extending the definition to virtually any kind of auto-dialer. Last year however, in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Ninth Circuit’s expansive approach to defining an ATDS, generally holding that an auto-dialer is not an ATDS if the numbers being dialed are from an existing list of specific numbers, such as from a database. Since Duguid, many TCPA defendants have argued that the definition of an ATDS requires that the random or sequential number generator be used to generate telephone numbers. Many TCPA defense attorneys also remained concerned that more liberal circuits, such as the Ninth and Second Circuits, might undermine Duguid’s conservative, defense-friendly ruling.

TCPA plaintiffs’ attorneys seized on a particular quirk in footnote 7 of the Duguid opinion where the Supreme Court addressed an argument concerning the overlapping of the “storing and producing functions” of an ATDS. In addressing a situation where an autodialer might not both store and produce numbers, the Supreme Court wrote: “For instance, an autodialer might use a random number generator to determine the order in which to pick phone numbers from a pre-produced list. It would then store those numbers to be dialed at a later time.” Plaintiffs’ attorneys have argued that companies that maintain customer contact lists and select which customers to contact on a given day using a random or sequential number generator are therefore using an ATDS. Continue reading ›

|

The Federal Trade Commission is taking action against motorcycle manufacturer Harley-Davidson and Westinghouse outdoor generator maker MWE Investments for illegally restricting customers’ right to repair their purchased products. The FTC has charged that the companies’ warranties included terms that conveyed that the warranties would be void if customers used independent dealers for parts or repairs. The FTC has ordered that Harley-Davidson and MWE Investments to take several corrective actions including removing illegal terms and recognizing the right to repair in their warranties, making corrective notices to their respective customers, and instituting new policies to ensure that dealers compete fairly with independent third-parties for parts and repair work.

In recent months, the FTC has prioritized its protection of consumers’ right to repair their products. Right-to-repair was part of a sweeping executive order that President Joe Biden signed last summer. The FTC’s primary tool for addressing right-to-repair issues is the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA), which prohibits companies from conditioning warranty coverage on a consumer’s use of any article or service identified by brand name unless it is provided for free.

Harley-Davidson is one of the most recognized motorcycle brands worldwide. MWE Investments sells Westinghouse-brand outdoor power generators and related equipment. The products of both companies come with limited warranties that provide for no-cost repair or replacement in the event the products are defective or suffer from other issues.

According to the FTC’s complaints, the terms of both companies’ warranties violated the MMWA by voiding customers’ warranties if they used anyone other than the companies and their authorized dealers to get parts or repairs for their products. The FTC also alleged that Harley-Davidson failed to fully disclose all of the terms of its warranty in a single document, requiring consumers to contact an authorized dealership for full details. The FTC’s complaints outlined how these terms allegedly harm consumers and competition, including by:

  • Restricting consumer choice regarding who performed service and repair work.
  • Increasing costs to consumers by requiring them to use potentially more expensive OEM options.
  • Depriving independent dealers and manufacturers of aftermarket parts of the ability to compete on a level playing field.
  • Reducing resiliency by leaving consumers at the mercy of branded part supply chains and increasing waste in the form of products that could otherwise be fixed.

Continue reading ›

|

Arbitration has been a hot topic in legal circles and court opinions over the last decade. The U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Appeals courts have issued a number of high-profile decisions addressing issues of the enforceability of arbitration agreements, who gets to decide the threshold issue of arbitrability, and whether class claims can be decided in arbitration. Proponents of arbitration argue that it is quicker and less expensive than traditional litigation and provides greater confidentiality than the public court record. Opponents argue that it provides fewer avenues for discovery and allows unscrupulous defendants to shield their unsavory conduct or practices from the public eye.

Regardless of which side of the argument you fall on, the undeniable truth is that arbitration agreements are ubiquitous. Consumers find them in everything from cellphone contracts to gym membership agreements and everything in between. Many employers include them in employment contracts requiring employees to arbitrate claims of discrimination or harassment. And nearly all car dealerships include them in their sales contracts. In short, arbitration agreements are impossible to escape in modern life.

One customer of Hyline Auto Sales, a used car dealer, found this out the hard way. In April 2019, the plaintiff, Jason Taylor, purchased a vehicle from Hyline. Included in his sales contract was an agreement to submit disputes for arbitration by the Better Business Bureau (BBB).

Only weeks after his purchase, Taylor filed an arbitration demand with the BBB. After no response from the BBB for a week, Taylor wrote the BBB asking for a hearing date. He requested a hearing again on May 1, 2019. On May 27, 2019, Taylor again wrote the BBB and asked for the appointment of an arbitrator. Over the following several months, Taylor contacted the BBB dozens of times requesting the appointment of an arbitrator and to set an arbitration date, without success. Continue reading ›

|

In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court recently came down hard on the Federal Trade Commission by eliminating its ability to seek monetary relief in court under Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act). The ruling comes as quite a blow to the FTC which has been recovering monetary penalties from defendants under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act for nearly half a century. The full impact of this ruling remains to be seen and may not become clear for several years.

Section 13(b) monetary relief is among the FTC’s primary tools for obtaining recovery in the cases it pursues, particularly in consumer protection matters. For instance, in fiscal year 2019 alone, the FTC filed 49 complaints in federal court and obtained 81 permanent injunctions and orders, resulting in more than $723 million in consumer redress or disgorgement. The ruling is also likely to affect antitrust enforcement in the pharmaceutical industry where the FTC has pursued disgorgement amounts as high as $1.2 billion. Going forward, the FTC will be limited to injunctive relief in the vast majority of matters unless it pursues other avenues of recovery available under different sections of the FTC Act.

The case, AMG Capital Management, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, began when the FTC filed a lawsuit in federal court against payday lender AMG Capital Management, its owner, Scott Tucker, and several other entities under Section 5(a) of the FTC Act for allegedly misleading consumers with certain terms of payday loans. A payday loan is a high-interest, short-term loan, typically marketed to low-income consumers in need of quick cash. They generally come with exorbitantly high interest rates and short repayment schedules and have been called predatory by a number of consumer rights advocacy groups, such as the National Association of Consumer Advocates.

In its complaint, the FTC alleged that AMG Capital Management and other related entities engaged in numerous deceptive acts and practices in connection with how it collected loan payments from borrowers, often resulting in consumers paying hundreds or thousands of dollars more than the cost of the loan disclosed in the loan application documents.

The FTC could have initiated the case by using administrative proceedings available to it under Sections 5 and 19 of the FTC Act. Instead, though the FTC skipped these administrative proceedings and initiated the case directly in federal court seeking a permanent injunction and equitable monetary relief in the form of restitution and disgorgement under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act. The district court directed the defendants to pay $1.27 billion in restitution and disgorgement. On appeal from the judgment, the Ninth Circuit affirmed, citing circuit precedent interpreting the statutory text of Section 13(b) broadly to include the authority to award restitution and other forms of monetary relief as “necessary to accomplish complete justice.” Continue reading ›

|

Insurance company State Farm is breathing a little easier after a Cook County judge recently dismissed a putative class action lawsuit filed against the insurer by the owner of an Evanston restaurant over the insurer’s denial of loss of income claims. In the complaint, the restaurant alleged that it and other restaurants suffered hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost income, resulting from state-ordered closures in response to COVID-19. The restaurant alleges that it filed a business interruption claim with State Farm who denied coverage.

Following denial of the claim, the restaurant filed suit against the insurer. In response, State Farm asked the court to dismiss the claims against it. In arguing for dismissal, State Farm asserted two arguments. First, it argued that an “accidental direct physical loss” to the covered property, required for coverage, had not occurred. Second, it argued that coverage was excluded by the “Fungi, Virus or Bacteria” Exclusion to the plaintiff’s policy, which excluded from coverage losses due to “[v]irus, bacteria or other microorganism that induces or is capable of inducing physical distress, illness or disease.”

In arguing that the physical loss trigger to coverage had not been met, State Farm relied on the 2001 Illinois Supreme Court’s opinion in Travelers Insurance Co. v. Eljer Manufacturing Inc. that a “physical” loss must include alterations in “appearance, shape, color or in other material dimension.” As a result, State Farm contended, economic losses from COVID-19 are legally distinct from physical losses and not covered by the plaintiff’s policy. In other words, simply being deprived of physical access to a restaurant building is insufficient to trigger coverage, even if the closure was by order of the Governor. Continue reading ›

|

Many states have passed laws in the past few years taking aim at automatic renewals in contracts such as subscription-based services. As people have found themselves home more and more during the COVID pandemic, the number of subscription services with automatic renewals have exploded. New York recently passed a law more strictly regulating these automatic subscription renewals. The new law is set to take effect on February 11, 2021.

New York’s new law is meant to replace an existing law concerning automatic renewals which was narrow in scope and applied only to contracts “for service, maintenance, or repair to or for any real or personal property” with a renewal period longer than one month. The scope of the new law is much broader, covering any company offering goods or services to consumers through any kind of subscription plan that automatically renews—which includes free trials, free gifts, and reduced-price trial periods that convert to paid subscriptions automatically charged to consumers’ credit cards. As the press release accompanying the passage of the law explained, the new law is meant to better protect consumers who may not understand how to cancel such subscriptions and to avoid “convoluted renewals [that] have created a public health hazard for New Yorkers during the pandemic, including some who were told they had to visit their gyms in person to cancel memberships.”

New York’s new statute prohibits automatically renewing a contract without a consumer’s “affirmative consent” for the renewal. Absent this affirmative consent, some goods the provider may have sent the consumer can be deemed “unconditional gifts.” Absent from the new law, however, are guidelines for how providers are to obtain this consent.

The new law also requires clear and conspicuous disclosures before enrollment. Specifically, it requires that “automatic renewal terms,” such as the cancellation policy, recurring charges, and length of the renewal term, among other things be presented in a “clear and conspicuous” way and in “visual proximity” to the request for a consumer’s consent. Consumers must also receive an acknowledgment in “a manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer” that includes the automatic renewal terms and information regarding how to cancel the agreement. Providers must also provide a web-based option for cancellation. And if a provider makes any material changes to its renewal terms, those new terms must be provided to consumers in a “clear and conspicuous” notice. Continue reading ›

|

Depending on the state in which they live, consumers sometimes have a hard time recovering the money they may have been deceived into giving to scammers who take their money and disappear, or to buy products that turn out to be harmful. Sometimes they can’t sue because they signed away their right to sue a company in their purchase agreement, or the amount spent is too small to justify the costs of an individual lawsuit. Other times they simply aren’t aware that the company has done something wrong. Regardless of the reason, it can be disheartening to see the number of consumers who are unable to recover funds lost as a result of scams or a company’s bad practices, but there is hope for those consumers.

One of the jobs of a state attorney general is to protect consumers against companies using predatory practices. Earlier this year Mark Brnovich, Arizona’s state attorney general, reported that his office had succeeded in recovering more than $38 million in restitution for consumers in 2019 alone.

Brnovich said the money has been recovered using a combination of out-of-court settlements, lawsuits filed (or backed) by the state, civil penalties, as well as costs associated with matters of consumer protection.

But the office of the state attorney general can’t protect consumers without the help of those same consumers. The state attorney general’s office relies on consumers, not only to notify them of potential scams and/or misconduct perpetrated by companies but also to provide evidence and testimony to help them pursue legal action, especially against large corporations. The Arizona state attorney general’s office reported having processed more than 14,000 written complaints, as well as 40,000 phone calls from consumers.

It’s a lot of information to go through, but it helped the Arizona state attorney general’s office bring legal action against large corporations, including e-cigarette manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies. Continue reading ›

|

Having a bad credit score can negatively impact your life in a big way. It can prevent you from getting loans for things you need – everything from buying a car to getting repairs done on your home can become difficult, if not impossible when you have a low credit score. When you are able to obtain a loan, a low credit score can mean you have to pay a much higher interest rate than you would get if you had a higher credit score. People struggling to pay back debt often have low credit scores, but having a low credit score imposes another financial burden on them, making it even more difficult for them to dig themselves out of debt. When you take all that into consideration, it’s no wonder people are desperate to have their credit scores improved by any means necessary. Unfortunately, this makes them vulnerable to predators claiming to be credit repair companies.

While there are legitimate companies that can help you improve your credit score by removing debt and “hard” credit checks from your credit score, there are also companies out there that claim they can do these things, charge a hefty fee, and then never deliver.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the office of the Illinois attorney general have each filed lawsuits against companies offering credit repair services while allegedly engaging in deceptive business practices and defrauding consumers. Continue reading ›

|

IMG_6355_3-300x189The FTC and the State of Ohio sued a third party payment processor that engaged in processing payments for third party merchants engaged in deceptive practices and consumer fraud, as well as telemarketers in violation of the FTC Act, the TSR, and the Ohio CSPA.

The Federal Trade Commission and the State of Ohio filed a complaint seeking a permanent injunction and other equitable relief against Madera Merchant Services and B&P Enterprises. The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas issued a temporary restraining order, asset freeze, and other equitable relief, as well as an order to show cause why a permanent injunction should not be issued.

Madera Merchant Services and B&P Enterprises operate a third-party processing scheme that uses remotely created payment orders or remotely created checks to withdraw money from consumers’ accounts on behalf of third-party merchants. Madera and B&P routinely withdrew funds from consumers for merchants that were engaged in fraud or deceptive marketing. The district court stated that the defendants also routinely provided payment processing services to telemarketers in violation of the TSR, which expressly prohibits collecting payments in connection with telemarketing sales. Continue reading ›

Contact Information
Chicago Office
19 S LaSalle St #702
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: 630-333-0333
Mailing Address
17W220 22nd St #410
Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
Phone: 630-333-0333 Please direct all mail correspondence to our Oakbrook Terrace address.
Highland Park Office
189 Whistler Rd
Highland Park, IL 60035
Phone: 630-710-4990
We accept the following credit cards
Credit Cards Accepted
We accept payment via Venmo at: @L-A-LAW

Please direct all mail correspondence to our Oakbrook Terrace address.

Phone: 603-333-0333
Visit our site: chicagobusinesslawfirm.com

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Lubin Austermuehle, P.C.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design