By: Alexander M. Smith On February 9, 2021, the Ninth Circuit—in a split decision with a spirited dissent—reversed the dismissal of a consumer class action challenging P.F. Chang’s’s use of the phrase “krab mix” to describe sushi rolls that contain no real crab. Although Kang is an unpublished case and... Continue reading

By Alexander M. Smith The Supreme Court’s next term kicks off next week, when the court re-convenes for its first oral argument since last April. The docket currently features four cases of interest to the consumer law and class action bar: In Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, a divided panel... Continue reading

By Alexander M. Smith In the last three years, the Ninth Circuit and the California Court of Appeal have issued a pair of decisions clarifying that restitution under California’s consumer protection statutes is limited to the difference between the price a consumer paid for the product and the value the... Continue reading

By Alexander M. Smith Last October, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued a final rule requiring payday lenders, automotive title lenders, deposit advance lenders, and similar short-term loan issuers to determine up front whether borrowers would have the ability to repay certain short-term, small dollar loans without borrowing again. (The... Continue reading

By Alexander M. Smith Earlier this week, the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument in Roberts v. AT&T Mobility LLC (Case No. 16-16915). In 2015, a putative class of consumers sued AT&T in the Northern District of California, alleging that AT&T misled consumers about its “unlimited” data plans by misrepresenting its... Continue reading

By Alexander M. Smith Earlier this week, the Eighth Circuit reversed an order by the Western District of Arkansas (Holmes, J.) imposing sanctions on counsel who voluntarily dismissed a putative class action immediately before they re-filed the action and sought approval of a class settlement in Arkansas state court. Although... Continue reading

By Alexander M. Smith This morning, the Supreme Court held 8-0 in Microsoft Corp. v. Baker that the named plaintiffs in a class action cannot appeal a denial of class certification (or the granting of a motion to strike class allegations) by voluntarily dismissing their claims. A five-Justice majority held... Continue reading

By Alexander M. Smith In November 2016, this blog reported that the D.C. Circuit appeared “sympathetic” to the position that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), which regulates “unsolicited” fax advertisements, did not empower the FCC to require opt-out notices on solicited fax advertisements. Last Friday, a divided panel of... Continue reading

By Alexander M. Smith On Tuesday, March 21, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Microsoft, Inc. v. Baker. (This blog has previously covered Baker here and here.) Baker addresses whether a plaintiff can render a denial of class certification – which is not otherwise a final appealable order under... Continue reading

By Alexander M. Smith Today, the Supreme Court hears oral argument in Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, which addresses the question of whether a plaintiff may render a denial of class certification appealable by voluntarily dismissing his or her claims with prejudice. (The Consumer Law Roundup’s earlier post on Baker is... Continue reading

By Alexander M. Smith Updating our previous report on the introduction of proposed class action reform, on March 9, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 985, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act of 2017, by a margin of 220-201. The current version of... Continue reading

By Alexander M. Smith In its first published opinion of 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 does not include a freestanding requirement of “an administratively feasible way to determine who is in the class.” The Ninth Circuit’s decision... Continue reading

By Alexander M. Smith The Tenth Circuit recently reaffirmed that the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), which authorizes federal jurisdiction over certain class actions where the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, does not require a showing that class members are likely to recover that amount. In Hammond v. Stamps.com,... Continue reading

By Alexander M. Smith In October 2014, the FCC issued an order affirming its position that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) requires senders of fax advertisements to include an opt-out notice on those faxes, even if the recipient had previously consented to receive those faxes. That order also acknowledged,... Continue reading

By Alexander M. Smith In May 2016, the FDA announced that it intended to re-evaluate its regulations concerning implied nutrient content claims, including the use of the term “healthy,” in light of evolving nutrition science. As part of that process, the FDA issued guidance this Tuesday, September 27, in which... Continue reading

In 2015, following an FDA warning letter asserting that KIND LLC violated FDA regulations by advertising its signature KIND bars as "healthy and tasty," plaintiffs around the country filed lawsuits alleging that KIND misleadingly advertised its products as "healthy," "all natural, and "non GMO." Continue reading

By Brian S. Scarbrough and Jan A. Larson As reports concerning the nature and extent of the flood-related damage along the Gulf Coast continue to develop, commercial property damage and business interruption insurance will be critical to the effort to recover and rebuild. Our insurance work in connection with other... Continue reading

In response to a petition filed by Broadnet Teleservices LLC and two other government contractors, the FCC issued a ruling on July 5, 2016 clarifying that “the TCPA does not apply to calls made by or on behalf of the federal government.” Continue reading

Last week, Judge Gonzalo Curiel of the Southern District of California dismissed a lawsuit alleging that MillerCoors falsely marketed Blue Moon as “craft beer” and denied the plaintiffs leave to amend. Continue reading

In Korea Week , Inc. v. Got Capital, LLC, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Kearney, J.) held that a freestanding class action waiver—that is, a waiver that was “independent and outside of an arbitration agreement”—was enforceable and that it rendered the plaintiffs inadequate class representatives. Continue reading

By Alexander M. Smith This morning, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, which posed the question of whether a plaintiff has standing to sue for statutory violations in the absence of actual injury. Robins initially sued Spokeo, a website that compiles personal data, for... Continue reading