Consumer Class Actions

  • June 26, 2018

In Cullinane v. Uber, First Circuit Addresses Arbitration Clauses in Online Contracts

Arbitration, Class Arbitration, Consumer Class Actions, First Circuit Decisions
Authors:
Practice area:

Yesterday the First Circuit weighed in on a hot topic – the enforceability of arbitration provisions in online contracts.  In Cullinane, several plaintiffs brought a putative class action alleging that Uber had violated Massachusetts’ consumer protection statute by assessing certain fees.  Uber filed a motion to compel arbitration under its Terms of Service, which contained an arbitration provision and class action waiver.  After the district court granted the motion, the First Circuit reversed, finding the arbitration provision unenforceable because Uber did not make its Terms of Service sufficiently conspicuous when its customers created a ride-sharing account.  Cullinane underscores the importance of obtaining customers’ affirmative consent to an online contract.

At the outset, the First Circuit acknowledged that the Federal Arbitration Action places arbitration provisions upon the same footing as other contract provisions. It also emphasized that arbitration is a matter of contract and that a valid contract must exist in order for the arbitration provision to be enforced.  The

Continue Reading...
  • March 30, 2018

Campbell-Ewald in Massachusetts

Consumer Class Actions, Jurisdiction, Massachusetts Decisions
Authors:
Practice area:

On March 6th, in Silva v. Todisco Services, Inc., Judge Kenneth Salinger, sitting in the Business Litigation Session of the Massachusetts Superior Court, held that a defendant’s tendering of the maximum amount of damages a plaintiff might recover in a putative class action did not moot either the plaintiff’s individual claims or the claims of putative class members. In rejecting defendant’s “pick-off” attempt, Judge Salinger aligned Massachusetts state court practice with federal case law, including the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez, and subsequent federal decisions. His reasons for doing so, while perhaps consistent with Massachusetts precedent, were somewhat different from the federal court rationale and could have unintended consequences.

In Campbell-Ewald, the Supreme Court held that an unaccepted offer of judgment does not moot a named plaintiff’s claim, and therefore cannot prevent a putative class action from moving forward. The Court based its decision on principles of contract law

Continue Reading...
  • November 14, 2017

Consumer Financial Services Arbitration: Another Perspective

Arbitration, Class Arbitration, Consumer Class Actions, Legislation
Authors:
Practice area:

Much has been said and written about Congress’ rejection of the CFPB proposal to ban class action waivers in arbitration agreements between consumers and financial services companies. One of the most frequent statements I have heard from some politicians in the media is that Congress has voted to ban class actions against banks. As is true with many political statements from both sides of the aisle, this one is only partially true. Here are a few additional (but not alternative) facts to place Congress’ action in context.

  • The CFPB rule, and not Congress’ rejection of it, would have represented a change in the law. Since the Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, class action waivers have generally been enforceable in contracts for consumer financial services. The CFPB proposed rule was based on the agency’s authority granted under the Dodd-Frank Act. However, Congress and the President had the final say regarding whether the rule would take effect, and
Continue Reading...
  • August 02, 2017

When you get what you pay for: the First Circuit examines the injury requirement under Massachusetts chapter 93A.

Consumer Class Actions, First Circuit Decisions
Authors:
Practice area:

On July 26th, the First Circuit issued rulings in putative consumer class actions brought by the same attorney against two national department store chains, challenging their allegedly deceptive use of comparative pricing on their in-store price tags.  In the first case, brought against Nordstrom, the court engaged in a careful review of a series of Massachusetts decisions interpreting the state’s consumer protection act, Massachusetts General Laws chapter 93A.  In the second case, against Kohl’s, the court continued the analysis to fill a procedural gap left open in the first case.  In the end, the court reinforced the Massachusetts cases holding that proof of an unfair or deceptive act or practice, without more, is not sufficient to support a claim under the Massachusetts statute.  Rather, plaintiffs must also prove that the violation caused them harm.  Because plaintiffs in these cases did not allege that products themselves were other than represented, but only that they subjectively believed that they were getting a good bargain, the court held that they failed

Continue Reading...
  • January 26, 2017

Ninth Circuit Widens Circuit Split on Ascertainability in Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.

Class Certifications, Consumer Class Actions
Authors:
Practice area:

On this blog, we have previously written about the growing split among the federal circuits concerning courts’ approaches to ascertainability. The Third Circuit, in a string of cases within the last five years, adopted a test requiring that class members must be identifiable without extensive and individualized fact-finding or “mini-trials,” and a plaintiff must present evidentiary support to demonstrate that a model it proposes to satisfy Rule 23’s requirements will be effective.  The Eleventh Circuit in Karhu v. Vital Pharmaceutical, Inc. similarly found that a plaintiff must establish an administratively feasible method by which class members can be identified.

In Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC, the Seventh Circuit rejected the Third Circuit’s approach, finding that the Third Circuit’s test was a “heightened” requirement above and beyond Rule 23’s requirements.  The Seventh Circuit adopted a more lenient approach and looks only at whether a class can be ascertained by objective criteria, not whether there’s an administratively feasible way to identify

Continue Reading...
  • August 01, 2016

Bellerman v. Fitchburg Gas & Electric Light Co. – Lack of Injury in Massachusetts Consumer Claims

Consumer Class Actions, Massachusetts Decisions
Authors:
Practice area:

In 2014, we posted about the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in Bellermann v. Fitchburg Gas & Electric Light Co.  In that case, plaintiffs sought relief under the Massachusetts consumer protection statute, G.L. c. 93A, because of the defendant utility’s alleged failure properly to prepare and plan for a major winter storm, and its allegedly deceptive communications made to consumers before and during the storm.  The SJC affirmed the trial court’s denial of class certification because plaintiffs could not establish that defendant’s conduct caused similar injury to consumers on a class-wide basis.

On remand, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification relying on a different liability theory – that they had suffered economic injury by overpaying for a level of emergency preparedness, required by Department of Public Utility regulations, which the defendant allegedly failed to provide.  This time a different trial court judge certified two classes under this diminution-in-value theory (a business customers class and a residential customers class), but

Continue Reading...
  • July 06, 2016

District of Massachusetts Grapples with Campbell-Ewald’s Unanswered Questions

Consumer Class Actions, US District Court - Mass
Authors:
Practice area:

Chief Judge Saris and Judge Sorokin of the District of Massachusetts recently tackled questions left unanswered by the Supreme Court’s opinion earlier this year in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016) (see Don Frederico’s prior post for a full discussion of Campbell-Ewald).

In South Orange Chiropractic Center, LLC v. Cayan LLC, 2016 WL 1441791, No. 15-13069 (D. Mass. April 12, 2016), the defendant, seeking to slip through the door left ajar by Campbell-Ewald, sought to deposit $7,500 with the court, providing the named plaintiff in a putative Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action with full relief. In addition, the defendant agreed to have judgment entered against it for allegedly sending plaintiff an unsolicited fax in violation of the TCPA, to pay for costs, to be enjoined from future conduct as to plaintiff or others, and to preserve evidence, and presented the plaintiff with a stand-alone settlement agreement,

Continue Reading...
  • May 17, 2016

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins and the No-Injury Class Action

Consumer Class Actions, Supreme Court
Authors:
Practice area:

Class action practitioners have been closely watching Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, a case before the Supreme Court on appeal from the Ninth Circuit.  Spokeo presented the Court with the opportunity to decide whether a plaintiff may maintain a class action absent any injury other than the violation of a statutory right.

Continue Reading...
  • May 05, 2016

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Publishes Proposed Rule Precluding Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Clauses

Consumer Class Actions
Authors:
Practice area:

The CFPB today released a proposed rule that would ban consumer financial services providers such as banks, credit card issuers, and small-dollar lenders from using mandatory arbitration clauses to prohibit consumers from filing or joining class actions against them. Please click here for further analysis and potential impacts of the proposed rule.

Continue Reading...
  • April 13, 2016

First Circuit Denies Review in Building Products Case

Class Certifications, Consumer Class Actions, First Circuit Decisions
Authors:
Practice area:

On October 2, 2015, we posted about the District of Massachusetts’ denial of class certification in a case in which we represent a building products company that sold allegedly defective decking.  We’re pleased to report that yesterday the First Circuit denied Plaintiffs’ petition for review of the class certification denial under Rule 23(f). 

Continue Reading...