159 results for 'cat:"Consumer Law" AND cat:"Class Action"'.
J. McHugh finds that the lower court properly dismissed all claims against the operator of ski resorts after a class of consumers sued them for not providing refunds for passes after the resorts were closed during the Covid-19 pandemic. When the consumers bought the ski passes initially, the contract to buy them included a clear no-refund policy. Though the resort owner was the one who broke the contract by closing the resorts, which consumers say voids the no-refund clause, there is nothing in Colorado law that allows for that interpretation. Affirmed.
Court: 10th Circuit, Judge: McHugh, Filed On: June 6, 2023, Case #: 21-1400 , Categories: consumer Law, class Action
J. Orrick declines to dismiss class claims against Saraya USA from consumers who say the company misrepresents their granola products as being mostly sweetened by monk fruit. Consumers say the products are instead mostly sweetened by erythritol, a sugar alcohol. Given that the packaging for the products also contains phrases like "sugar free" or "no sugar added," it's reasonable at this stage to infer that buyers are being misled.
Court: USDC Northern District of California, Judge: Orrick, Filed On: June 5, 2023, Case #: 3:22cv5232, NOS: Other Fraud - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: consumer Law, class Action, False Advertising
J. Oberto grants an individual’s unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement of credit reporting claims. The settlement, which includes an automatic $1,000 payout to each class member in exchange for a broad release of claims, is fair, adequate and reasonable.
Court: USDC Eastern District of California, Judge: Oberto, Filed On: June 1, 2023, Case #: 1:18cv1359, NOS: Consumer Credit - Other Suits, Categories: Settlements, consumer Law, class Action
J. Davis finds the district court improperly dismissed an individual's class claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The single ringless voicemail attributed to the energy provider is sufficient to constitute a concrete harm to confer standing under the Act. The call clearly disrupted the individual's right to seclusion, and, although the interruption may have been brief, the severity of the intrusion does not prevent it from being considered a concrete harm. Reversed.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Davis, Filed On: June 1, 2023, Case #: 22-3394, Categories: consumer Law, class Action
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Flanagan denies, in part, a debt collector's motion to dismiss an individual's consumer claims related to its attempt to collect more than $6,000 in collection fees on a $314 debt she owed a homeowners' association and the subsequent lien it placed on her home. She has alleged sufficient facts to support her claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and two state debt collection laws, along with her class claims.
Court: USDC Eastern District of North Carolina, Judge: Flanagan, Filed On: May 31, 2023, Case #: 5:22cv302, NOS: Consumer Credit - Other Suits, Categories: Debt Collection, consumer Law, class Action
J. Melloy finds a lower court improperly remanded class claims of deceptive marketing practices against Walmart to State court concerning the sale of a cough suppressant with a "non- drowsy" label. The class of consumers argued that the case should be remanded to state court because the amount in controversy did not exceed $5 million. However, Walmart sufficiently showed in court that the amount exceeds the jurisdictional requirement under the Class Action Fairness Act. Reversed.
Court: 8th Circuit, Judge: Melloy, Filed On: May 24, 2023, Case #: 23-1381, Categories: consumer Law, Jurisdiction, class Action
Per curiam, the circuit finds that the district court properly dismissed class deceptive trade practices claims brought against a tortilla producer. Images used in the packaging may be associated with Mexico, but packaging contained the statement "Made in the U.S.A." and listed Georgia as the site of manufacture. Affirmed.
Court: 2nd Circuit, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: May 22, 2023, Case #: 22-1805, Categories: consumer Law, class Action