Articles Posted in Consumer Fraud/Consumer Protection

|

Consumer protection is a cornerstone of the legal system, and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA) plays a pivotal role in safeguarding consumers from deceptive practices. Recent opinions from the Illinois Supreme Court and various state and federal courts in Illinois have provided crucial guidance on the interpretation and application of the ICFA. In this blog post, we will explore some of these significant opinions and their implications for consumers and businesses.

“Here are some recent Illinois consumer fraud decisions and their key holdings:

1. “Cellular Dynamics, Inc. v. MCI Telecommunications Corp.” (Decided on April 12, 1995). The court held that under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, a single deceptive act is sufficient to support recovery and the plaintiff’s failure to allege a public wrong is not fatal to its claim [2].

2. “Barbara’s Sales, Inc. v. Intel Corp.” (Decided on November 29, 2007). The court determined that the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act applies only to fraudulent transactions which take place primarily and substantially in Illinois [3, 4].

3. “Costa v. Mauro Chevrolet, Inc.” (Decided on July 18, 2005). The court ruled that assignee of retail installment contract for car sale had no derivative liability under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act . The court also noted that the FTC Holder Notice has been largely superseded by subsequent federal legislation, namely, section 1641(a) of TILA.

4. “Camasta v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc.” (Decided on August 1, 2014). The court found that to state a claim under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, a plaintiff must show: a deceptive or unfair act or promise by the defendant; the defendant’s intent that the plaintiff rely on the deceptive or unfair practice; and that the unfair or deceptive practice occurred during a course of conduct involving trade or commerce. In a private action under this act, the element of actual damages requires that the plaintiff suffer actual pecuniary loss.

5. “Rudy v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc.” (Decided on February 4, 2022. The court emphasized that the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act is designed to protect consumers, borrowers, and business persons against fraud, unfair methods of competition, and other unfair and deceptive business practices.

6. “Landau v. CNA Financial Corp.” (Decided on March 26, 2008). This case reiterated that the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act does not have extraterritorial effect and does not apply to fraudulent transactions that take place outside Illinois.

7. “Avery v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.” (Decided on August 18, 2005). The court held that the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act could be applied to consumers residing out-of-state if the deceptive acts and practices were perpetrated in Illinois.

8. “Freeman v. MAM USA Corporation” (Decided on March 23, 2021). The court provided a refined explanation of what a plaintiff must allege in order to state a claim under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

9. “Dwyer v. American Exp. Co.” (Decided on June 30, 1995). This case added that in order to successfully claim under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, plaintiffs must also show how they were damaged.

10. “Troutt v. Mondelēz Global LLC” (Decided on October 31, 2022). This case reiterated the broad prohibitions of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act against unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce.

11. “Sneed v. Ferrero U.S.A., Inc.” (Decided on February 15, 2023). The court stated that an accurate ingredient list does not immunize a defendant from a deceptive front label under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, but it is relevant to determining whether reasonable consumers would be misled

Implications for Consumers and Businesses

These opinions from Illinois courts highlight the continued significance of the ICFA in protecting consumers from deceptive and fraudulent business practices. For consumers, these opinions underscore their rights to pursue legal action when they believe they have been victims of consumer fraud.

For businesses, these opinions serve as a reminder of the importance of conducting business practices in a transparent and ethical manner. Adhering to the ICFA and avoiding deceptive practices is not only legally required but also crucial for maintaining a positive reputation and avoiding costly legal battles.

In conclusion, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act remains a critical tool for consumer protection in Illinois. Recent opinions from both state and federal courts in Illinois reinforce the Act’s role in safeguarding consumers and promoting fair and honest business practices. It is essential for both consumers and businesses to stay informed about these developments and seek legal guidance when necessary to ensure compliance with the ICFA.

Continue reading ›

|

Introduction

Consumer protection laws play a vital role in safeguarding consumers from deceptive and unfair business practices. In the state of Illinois, the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA) serves as a robust framework for addressing such issues. One essential aspect of the ICFA is the “unfairness doctrine,” which empowers consumers by offering recourse against businesses engaging in unfair practices. In this blog post, we’ll delve into the details of the unfairness doctrine under the ICFA, exploring its significance and how it benefits consumers.

Understanding the ICFA

The Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, codified at 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq., provides comprehensive protection to consumers against deceptive and unfair business practices. It encompasses a wide range of activities, from false advertising to fraudulent sales tactics, and it allows consumers to seek remedies for damages and injunctive relief.

The Unfairness Doctrine Explained

The unfairness doctrine within the ICFA prohibits businesses from engaging in practices that are “unfair or deceptive.” While the term “deceptive” generally refers to fraudulent or misleading actions, “unfair” practices may not be as immediately evident. The unfairness doctrine serves as a crucial tool for addressing business practices that, while not necessarily deceptive, harm consumers in an unjust or unreasonable manner.

Key Components of Unfairness

To determine whether a business practice is unfair under the ICFA, Illinois courts consider the following factors:

  1. Substantial Injury: The practice must cause substantial harm to consumers, either financially or otherwise. Minor inconveniences or trivial harms typically do not meet this criterion.
  2. Lack of Countervailing Benefits: Courts assess whether the harm to consumers outweighs any potential benefits or justifications offered by the business. If the practice provides significant advantages, it may be considered less unfair.
  3. Consumer Knowledge: The ICFA recognizes that some practices may be considered unfair if consumers lack sufficient knowledge or understanding of the implications. If a practice takes advantage of consumers’ lack of information, it may be deemed unfair.
  4. Public Policy: Courts consider whether the practice violates established public policy. Practices that contravene societal norms and values are more likely to be deemed unfair.

Continue reading ›

|

Buying a used car can be an exciting experience, but it comes with risks, particularly when it involves fraud. Fortunately, Illinois has robust consumer protection laws, and recent court decisions shed light on how these laws are applied in cases of used car fraud. In this blog post, we’ll explore key court decisions in Illinois that have significant implications for consumers and dealerships involved in used car transactions.

1. In “Costa v. Mauro Chevrolet, Inc.”, decided on July 18, 2005, the ICFA claim was brought against Mauro Chevrolet, Larson, Bosco, and GMAC. The plaintiffs alleged that GMAC was liable for unfair and deceptive conduct under the Illinois Fraud Act as the holder of their consumer credit contract and that Mauro Chevrolet’s conduct was fraudulent.

2. “Tandy v. Marti”, decided on April 29, 2002, involved a used car buyer who brought a claim under the ICFA against a dealer that sold the car to the seller. The court held that the buyer’s allegations were sufficient to state a claim under the Act.

3. In “Castro v. Union Nissan, Inc.”, decided on July 8, 2002, the claim under the ICFA was against an automobile dealership for failing to return a down payment to customers after they were denied credit to finance the sale of a vehicle. This case relates to the provision under section 2C of the Act, which stipulates that if credit application is rejected, the seller must return any down payment made under that purchase order or contract.

4. “Fleury v. General Motors LLC”, decided on February 1, 2023, involved a putative class action brought by a vehicle buyer against General Motors alleging violation of the ICFA, fraud, and breach of express warranty under Illinois law.

Conclusion

These recent court decisions in Illinois demonstrate the state’s commitment to protecting consumers from deceptive practices in the used car market. Whether through deceptive advertising, misrepresentation of a vehicle’s condition, or fraudulent odometer readings, the courts have consistently upheld consumer rights and held dealerships accountable for their actions.

If you suspect you’ve been a victim of used car fraud in Illinois, it’s crucial to be aware of your legal rights and consider consulting with an attorney experienced in consumer protection and fraud cases. These court decisions serve as a reminder that consumers have legal recourse when they encounter fraudulent practices in the used car industry, ensuring fair and transparent transactions for all. Continue reading ›

|

Bringing a used car fraud case under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (ICFA) can be a complex process, but it’s essential to protect your rights as a consumer. If you believe you’ve been a victim of used car fraud in Illinois, here are the steps you should consider taking:

1. Gather Documentation: Start by collecting all relevant documents related to the used car purchase. This includes the sales contract, any warranties or guarantees, repair records, communications with the seller, and any advertisements or representations made about the car’s condition.

2. Understand the ICFA: Familiarize yourself with the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, which is designed to protect consumers from deceptive and unfair business practices. The ICFA prohibits false statements, misrepresentations, knowing omissions of material fact (such as knowing concealing that the frame is rusted out and the car is dangerous to drive or that it has been in a bad accident and no proper repair work was performed), and other fraudulent actions in the sale of goods and services, including used cars.

3. Consult an Attorney: It’s highly advisable to consult with an attorney experienced in consumer fraud and automotive fraud cases. They can assess your situation, determine if you have a valid case, and provide guidance on how to proceed.

4. Prove Deception or Unfair Practices: To bring a successful used car fraud case under the ICFA, you generally need to prove that:

  • The seller made false statements, knowingly failed to disclose material facts or engaged in deceptive practices.
  • You relied on those statements, omissions or practices.
  • You suffered damages as a result.

Continue reading ›

|

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 U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently published a proposed rule that, if implemented, would update the labeling standards that food products must meet in order to be labeled as “healthy.” The FDA first established a definition for “healthy” in 1994, and at that time nutrition science and federal dietary guidance focused more on the individual nutrients contained in food. According to the FDA, the proposed rule would “align the definition of ‘healthy’ with current nutrition science, the updated Nutrition Facts label and the current Dietary Guidelines for Americans,” with the goal of assisting consumers to increase their consumption of under-consumed dietary components.

The proposed rule would achieve this goal by requiring “healthy” foods to contain a minimum quantity of at least one of the specified food groups or subgroups recommended by the Dietary Guidelines such as fruits and vegetables, while limiting over-consumed ingredients that may lead to negative health consequences such as sodium or added sugars. The FDA’s proposed framework for the updated definition of “healthy” focuses on ensuring that foods labeled as healthy can qualify to bear the title by helping consumers to build a diet consistent with current dietary recommendations. Continue reading ›

|

Executors and trustees have a large amount of responsibility with respect to the assets they manage and to the beneficiaries for whose benefit they manage such assets. However, with a high degree of responsibility comes a high degree of accountability. That accountability comes in the form of the fiduciary duties that trustees and executors owe to the beneficiaries of an estate or trust. Chief among those fiduciary duties are the duties of loyalty, care, impartiality, and disclosure.

One way that executors and trustees can breach their fiduciary duties is by engaging in fraud. Executor or trustee fraud occurs when the executor or trustee uses deceit to misappropriate estate or trust assets for themselves or someone else not entitled to receive them. Claims of executor or trustee fraud can have serious consequences, including holding the executor or trustee personally liable for the losses suffered by the beneficiaries.

Examples of ways that an executor or trustee can commit fraud against the beneficiaries include:

  • Misappropriating assets of the estate or trust
  • Withholding distributions from beneficiaries
  • Distributing less than what a beneficiary is entitled
  • Hiding or omitting estate or trust assets
  • Failing to notify beneficiaries
  • Falsifying liabilities
  • Charging inflated fees
  • Selling assets for below market value to someone connected to the trustee or executor such as a friend or family member.

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 ›

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

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 © 2026, DiTommaso Lubin, PC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design