Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

The plaintiffs in this case are individuals who received marketing text messages and phone calls from a medical services company, promoting its home sleep tests. Despite their efforts to stop the communications—such as replying “STOP” to text messages and registering on the National Do-Not-Call Registry—they continued to receive unwanted texts and calls. They filed a consolidated class action complaint seeking monetary, injunctive, and declaratory relief for alleged violations of both the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227, and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois reviewed the complaint after the defendant moved to dismiss the TCPA claims. The defendant argued that the relevant TCPA provision, § 227(c)(5), only provides a private right of action for unwanted telephone calls, not text messages. The plaintiffs did not argue that their suit could proceed based on calls alone. The district court agreed with the defendant, found that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the TCPA because their complaint focused on text messages, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim, ultimately dismissing the entire suit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The main issue was whether § 227(c)(5)’s reference to “telephone calls” includes text messages. The court held that, based on the statute’s text, context, and the ordinary public meaning at the time of enactment, “telephone call” does not encompass text messages. The court also concluded that neither FCC interpretations nor prior decisions involving other TCPA provisions required a different outcome. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. View "Steidinger v Blackstone Medical Services" on Justia Law

A startup company that produces grain-free pet food filed a class action lawsuit against a major competitor, a traditional pet food company, alleging violations of the Lanham Act for false advertising. The plaintiff claimed that the larger company, whose products contain grain, conspired with veterinarians and two non-profit organizations to falsely associate grain-free pet food with an increased risk of canine heart disease. The complaint described a coordinated marketing campaign, including statements on the defendant’s website, educational materials for veterinarians, and dissemination of information through blogs, media appearances, and social media. The plaintiff asserted these actions were intended to disparage grain-free products and damage its business.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas dismissed the plaintiff’s claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The district court found that the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege two required elements for a Lanham Act claim: first, that the challenged statements constituted commercial speech; and second, that the statements were literally false. The court concluded that academic articles and the other challenged statements were not commercial speech, and that the plaintiff had not sufficiently alleged literal falsity. The court also dismissed the related Kansas civil conspiracy claim, as it depended on the Lanham Act violation.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The appellate court held that the district court erred in part. It found that the plaintiff plausibly alleged that some of the traditional pet food company’s website statements and veterinary educational materials were commercial speech and could be literally false under the establishment claim doctrine. However, it affirmed dismissal regarding statements made by veterinarians and non-profits, finding these were not commercial speech. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "KetoNatural Pet Foods v. Hill's Pet Nutrition" on Justia Law

Clearview AI, Inc. developed technology that collects and analyzes photographs from public websites to create facial recognition profiles, which can reveal personal details about individuals. After a media exposé in January 2020, multiple putative class-action lawsuits were filed against Clearview and related defendants, alleging misuse of biometric data. The cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and plaintiffs asserted claims on behalf of a nationwide class and state-specific subclasses (Illinois, California, New York, and Virginia), each based on differing statutory and common law rights.The litigation was extensive, involving motions to dismiss and discovery, before settlement negotiations began. The initial settlement talks failed due to Clearview’s limited financial resources. A second round resulted in a proposed settlement that offered class members a share in Clearview’s future equity, with a larger stake for members of certain state subclasses compared to the nationwide class. No original class representatives endorsed the settlement, prompting lead counsel to appoint new representatives, all from the favored subclasses. The district court, after considering objections, including from members of the nationwide class, approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the objections of nationwide class members. The court found no inherent flaw in the lack of injunctive relief or in the structure of monetary relief (an equity stake in the defendant). However, it held that the settlement was procedurally deficient because no representative of only the nationwide class participated in or approved the allocation of benefits, raising concerns about fair and adequate representation. The Seventh Circuit vacated the district court’s approval of the settlement and remanded for further proceedings. View "Weissman v Clearview AI, Inc." on Justia Law

After defaulting on his credit card debt, the plaintiff’s outstanding balance was sold by the issuing bank to a series of institutional debt buyers. None of these entities were licensed in New Jersey as consumer lenders or sales finance companies at the time they acquired the debt. The last entity in the chain, LVNV Funding LLC, obtained a default judgment against the plaintiff to collect the debt. Subsequently, the plaintiff initiated a separate class action against LVNV and the other assignees, seeking a declaration that the debt purchase was void under the New Jersey Consumer Finance Licensing Act (CFLA) because the buyers lacked the required licenses, and requesting an injunction against further collection efforts.The Superior Court, Law Division, dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice, holding that the CFLA does not provide a private right of action for borrowers to void loan contracts based on alleged licensing violations. While the plaintiff’s appeal was pending, the Appellate Division decided Francavilla v. Absolute Resolutions VI, LLC, which held that the CFLA confers no such private right. Relying on that precedent, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal and denied the plaintiff’s cross-motion to vacate the underlying default judgment.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case to determine whether a borrower may bring a private action under the CFLA to void a loan contract. The Court held that the CFLA does not contain an implied private right of action for borrowers to void loan contracts. The Court reasoned that the legislative history and statutory structure show no intent to permit such private suits, noting that prior statutes expressly granted a private remedy, which was omitted from the CFLA. The voiding provision in the CFLA operates within a penal framework, and absent clear legislative direction, the Court will not infer a private right of action. The judgment of the Appellate Division was affirmed. View "Diana v. LVNV Funding LLC" on Justia Law

A group of Kansas residential natural gas consumers, who purchase gas from local distributors, sued several interstate wholesalers. They alleged that during Winter Storm Uri, the wholesalers manipulated the market and sold natural gas to local distributors at exorbitant prices, leading to unprecedented increases in retail gas prices. The plaintiffs claimed these actions violated the Kansas Consumer Protection Act (KCPA) by forcing local distributors into the high-priced spot market and passing the excessive costs on to consumers. The plaintiffs contended that even though the alleged misconduct occurred in the wholesale market, it had a direct and significant impact on retail customers.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas consolidated five class actions and reviewed the claims. The district court granted the defendants’ joint motion to dismiss, finding that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has exclusive jurisdiction over interstate wholesale natural gas rates under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and that the plaintiffs’ state-law claims were preempted. The court concluded that the challenged conduct concerned wholesale transactions, which are subject to comprehensive federal regulation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the NGA field-preempts the plaintiffs’ KCPA claims because the claims are aimed directly at, and challenge, transactions and practices in the interstate wholesale natural gas market, an area reserved for federal oversight. The Tenth Circuit distinguished this case from Supreme Court precedent where state-law claims were not preempted, emphasizing that these plaintiffs’ claims targeted wholesale sales rather than background marketplace conditions. The court concluded that the exclusive jurisdiction of FERC over wholesale sales foreclosed state-law consumer protection claims based on those transactions. View "Mehl v. BP Energy Company" on Justia Law

Robert Hossfeld received twelve telemarketing calls advertising Allstate Insurance products, despite having previously requested that Allstate not contact him. The calls were made by Atlantic Telemarketing Center, which had been subcontracted by Transfer Kings, a company retained by Allstate’s insurance agents, Fleming and Gilmond. Allstate’s internal do-not-call list included Hossfeld’s number months before the calls occurred. Neither Allstate nor its agents were aware that Atlantic was involved in marketing Allstate insurance until after Hossfeld initiated his lawsuit.Hossfeld sued Allstate in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) because Allstate failed to maintain an adequate do-not-call policy and permitted calls to be made to him after his request. He also sought class certification for other similarly affected individuals. The district court denied class certification, finding Hossfeld had not demonstrated that the proposed class was sufficiently numerous. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in Hossfeld’s favor, holding Allstate vicariously liable for Atlantic’s calls under agency law and awarding treble damages for willful violations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The appellate court affirmed the denial of class certification, agreeing that Hossfeld failed to prove numerosity and impracticability of joinder. However, it reversed the district court’s summary judgment on liability, concluding that Hossfeld failed to show Allstate was liable for Atlantic’s calls under any theory of agency law, including subagency, apparent authority, or ratification. The Seventh Circuit clarified that the willfulness standard under the TCPA requires reckless or knowing conduct, not merely volitional acts. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part, directing judgment for Allstate. View "Hossfeld v Allstate Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Two individuals filed a lawsuit on behalf of themselves and a proposed class, alleging that a life insurance company’s “Trendsetter LB” term life insurance policy misrepresented its premium structure. The plaintiffs argued that policy language stating the annual premium was “excluding riders” and that additional accelerated death benefit riders were included at “no charge” was misleading. They claimed consumers were led to believe these extra benefits were free, when in fact the premium included undisclosed charges for these riders. The plaintiffs did not allege they were denied any promised benefits, but contended the policy failed to break down the cost of its bundled components, allegedly causing consumers to misunderstand their options and overpay compared to a more basic policy.The case began in Alameda County Superior Court. Plaintiffs sought class certification for claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), focusing only on alleged misrepresentations in the policy’s standardized language. The trial court initially found ascertainability and numerosity met, but denied class certification for most claims, ruling that determining liability would require individualized inquiries into what information each customer received from agents or marketing materials. The court certified only a narrow claim regarding compliance with a statutory notice requirement, but later, at plaintiffs’ request, denied certification entirely when they clarified they did not intend to pursue that claim.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division One, affirmed the trial court’s denial of class certification. The court held that the policy language was, at best, ambiguous and that resolving liability would depend not just on the form policy language but also on individualized evidence about communications with each purchaser. The court determined that common issues did not predominate and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying certification. The judgment was affirmed. View "Guthrie v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Several Michigan residents purchased expensive solar-panel systems from a company that promised substantial reductions in their electricity bills. The company’s advertising, prepared in part by entities connected to Trivest Partners, promoted significant savings and government payments, but the plaintiffs experienced little to no reduction in their bills and, in some cases, saw increases. The company, which operated in both Michigan and Florida, later went bankrupt. Alleging fraud and racketeering violations, the plaintiffs brought a civil RICO action and a Michigan Consumer Protection Act claim against Trivest Partners, its affiliates (all Florida entities), and the company founder.In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the two Florida-based Trivest defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that the civil RICO statute did not allow them to be sued in Michigan, as a court in Florida could exercise jurisdiction over all defendants. The district court denied the motion, holding that several practical factors—including the pending status of the case in Michigan, local counsel, and comparative convenience—favored retaining jurisdiction. The plaintiffs later added additional Trivest-related defendants, also Florida citizens, with the court again finding personal jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 1965(b) de novo. The appellate court held that the district court’s reasons, grounded in convenience and practical considerations, were insufficient as a matter of law to satisfy the “ends of justice require” standard under § 1965(b). The Sixth Circuit concluded that interests of convenience alone cannot justify asserting personal jurisdiction over defendants with no minimum contacts to the forum. The court reversed the district court’s order denying dismissal and vacated the order denying the Trivest defendants’ motions to compel arbitration. View "Hall v. Trivest Partners L.P." on Justia Law

The plaintiff, an Arizona resident, registered her personal cell phone on the national “do not call” registry in 2004. She alleged that a real estate company, Fast Easy Offer, LLC, and related entities, contacted her through at least six phone calls and two text messages in the fall of 2024. The messages asked if she had given up on selling her property. According to the plaintiff, Fast Easy Offer’s business model involves purchasing homes below market value and remarketing them, and if a home is not purchased, the lead is given to a real estate brokerage, Keller Williams Realty Phoenix, with revenues shared. The plaintiff claimed that the purpose of these communications was to solicit the purchase of real estate brokerage services.The plaintiff filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the communications did not qualify as “telephone solicitations” under the Act and that Keller Williams Realty, Inc. was not vicariously liable. The district court granted the motion, dismissing the complaint with prejudice. The court held that the calls and texts were not telephone solicitations because they did not expressly encourage the purchase of services.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. It held that under the TCPA’s definition, and consistent with Chesbro v. Best Buy Stores, L.P., 705 F.3d 913 (9th Cir. 2012), the plaintiff had adequately pleaded that the messages qualified as telephone solicitations. The court concluded that the purpose of initiation of the calls or messages is determinative, and the plaintiff’s allegations about defendants’ intent sufficed. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. View "COFFEY V. FAST EASY OFFER, LLC" on Justia Law

A trucking company conducted background checks on a job applicant, both before and during his employment, using disclosure and authorization forms. The applicant alleged these forms did not comply with the requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), and initiated a class action on behalf of similarly situated job seekers and employees. He asserted that the company obtained background checks without proper, legally compliant disclosures and authorizations, in violation of federal law.The San Mateo County Superior Court initially certified the class for claims under the FCRA. After the Fifth District Court of Appeal decided *Limon v. Circle K Stores Inc.*, which interpreted the FCRA as requiring plaintiffs to show concrete injury for standing in California courts, the defendant moved to decertify the class, arguing the applicant had not identified any actual harm. The Superior Court agreed, finding that the applicant’s confusion and lack of awareness about the background checks did not amount to concrete injury, and decertified the class.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. It held that California courts are not bound by Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which requires concrete injury in federal courts. The Court interpreted the FCRA’s language and legislative history to mean that statutory damages are available for willful violations, even absent proof of actual harm. It found that a statutory violation alone is sufficient to confer standing in California courts for FCRA claims, and that the applicant’s interest in his statutory rights was adequate. The Court of Appeal reversed the Superior Court’s order decertifying the class, holding that proof of actual injury is not required to maintain a class action under the FCRA in California state court. View "Askins v. CRST Expedited, Inc." on Justia Law