Trial court dismissed a suit against the maker of a cold and flu product that contained vitamin C. Plaintiffs’ claims that the alleged benefits of vitamin C were unproven and so violated the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act were rejected as there is no such private cause of action.
(Updated November 2010)

California appeals court held that a special interest group may pursue its goal of requiring restaurants that sell grilled chicken to post warning labels that it contains cancer-causing chemicals. Federal poultry regulation does not preempt the posting of health warnings under state law.
(Updated October 2010)

Trial court sided with a majority of other courts in rejecting a claim by a debtor that a letter from a debt collector to the debtor’s attorney about a debt did not violate the FDCPA. The attorney is sophisticated and is serving as intermediary in resolving debt problems, so there is no damaging result from the communication.
(Updated September 2010)

Appeals court held that a restaurant violated the ADA by not providing disabled customers the same line-of-sight of food preparation as enjoyed by customers not in wheelchairs. The restaurant chain must come into compliance and pay damages to the disabled person who brought suit.
(Updated September 2010)

Federal court held that a consumer who provided evidence that a bank provided false information about credit activity to consumer reporting agencies, and then failed to investigate the dispute raised by the consumer, provided a cause of action for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and, under state law, claims for negligence and libel.
(Updated March 2010)

Court issued an injunction against an identity theft protection company that would request a credit reporting agency to place fraud alerts on subscribers’ files when it so requested. The court held that under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, only individuals may request such alerts.
(Updated November 2009)

Indiana high court held that the state law restricting the use of autodialers, unless allowed by a recipient of such calls, applies to commercial and non-commercial calls. An injunction would be issued against the makers of such calls.
(Updated September 2009)

Arkansas high court struck down a state statute that allowed payday loans by calling a loan a service rather than a loan and the interest charged a service fee rather than interest. These were loans in reality, and the interest rate charged was higher than permitted by the usury provision in the state constitution.
(Updated September 2009)

Appeals court upheld a Federal Communications Commission ruling that when a phone company learns it is about to lose a customer because the customer has requested a new service provider switch the customer’s phone number to the new carrier, the phone company may not contact the defecting customer in an effort to keep his or her business.
(Updated August 2009)

Supreme Court held that the state-court product liability judgment against a drug maker for inadequate warning of dangers associated with injecting a drug was not precluded by the requirement that the drug maker obtain FDA approval for drug warnings.
(Updated June 2009)

Appeals court held that a New York City regulation requiring certain restaurants to list the calorie content of all items on their menu was rationally related to concern about obesity and did not conflict with federal nutrition labeling requirements.
(Updated June 2009)

Federal appeals court held that a New York resident must sue a company accused of violating the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act in state court, not federal court, and could not bring a class action suit, as it was not permitted by New York law.
(Updated February 2009)

Federal appeals court held that a New York resident must sue a company accused of violating the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act in state court, not federal court, and could not bring a class action suit, as it was not permitted by New York law.
(Updated February 2009)

New Mexico high court held that the buyer of a Dell computer, who claimed the company misrepresented the capability of its machines, could not be required to arbitrate his claim and could not be prohibited from bringing a class action suit against the company.
(Updated September 2008)

Supreme Court held that the maker of a medical device approved for marketing by the FDA is, under the Medical Device Amendments, subject to suit for violating FDA standards, but federal law expressly pre-empts state common law suits against the device maker.
(Updated September 2008)

California high court held that consumers had the right to pursue possible remedies against sellers of farm raised salmon accused of not disclosing color additive use. Since California is adopting FDA rules, there is no conflict with federal law, and the state may enforce federal standards.
(Updated September 2008)

Appeals court held that a claim that the wording in a debt collection letter was confusing and therefore violated federal law failed as the court found that most people would find the letter to provide a common sense explanation of the matter.
(Updated March 2008)

Appeals court held that a lender violated the Truth in Lending Act by failing to state that there were 360 total payments due on a 30-year mortgage. While there was nothing misleading in the disclosure statement, specific TILA requirements must be followed or the law is violated.
(Updated March 2008)

Appeals court held that Congress has given the FDA control of the regulation of prescription drugs. Those regulations are highly specific. The states may not interfere. A challenge to the accuracy of a drug ad may not be brought based on state law.
(Updated January 2008)

Appeals court held that while the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Truth in Lending Act did not apply to debt collection practices of a credit card company, there were sufficient allegations to allow a suit for emotional distress to proceed.
(Updated December 2007)

Florida high court held that both the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the state Lemon Law may be invoked by a consumer who has a long-term lease on a car. The lessee has the same warranty rights as if they were the owner of the car.
(Updated December 2007)

Federal appeals court held that a New Hampshire law that restricted the sale of gift cards was in conflict with federal regulation of such cards, since they are issued by banks subject to federal regulation. The state law must give way to federal rules.
(Updated November 2007)

Supreme Court held that an insurance company may have violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act requirement to send a consumer an adverse action notice based on higher insurance premiums due to bad credit scores, but the failure was not in reckless disregard of the statute, so there were no damages.
(Updated September 2007)

Ohio high court held that under the state’s Consumer Sales Practices Act, a jury could award damages for emotional distress to a consumer mistreated by a car dealer. The measure of damages is to be liberally construed.
(Updated March 2007)

Appeals court held that for a mortgage company to give a creditor conflicting forms about the right to rescind violated the TILA rule of a clear and conspicuous disclosure statement that includes the right of rescission. That violation gave the consumer up to three years within which to rescind, rather then three days.
(Updated February 2007)

Appeals court held that a notice required by TILA, that a consumer has the right to rescind certain loan agreements within three days, does not fail to be effective because some language in the notice can be claimed by some to be confusing. An ordinary consumer would understand the notice.
(Updated February 2007)

Appeals court held that for a self-storage facility to sell a renter’s possessions to make up past due rent was unfair because the facility failed to notify the renter of the action it was about to take. Notification is required by state law.
(Updated December 2006)

Appeals court held that a credit reporting agency may have had grounds to suspect that a request for a credit report for "account review" was not a valid request since the consumer had no dealing with the company in question for four years.
(Updated August 2006)

Appeals court held that for the FDA to prevent voluntary access by terminally ill patients to drugs approved for human trials is a violation of the Fifth Amendment right of due process that guarantees protection of life.
(Updated August 2006)

Arizona high court held that a lessee of a car that had many repair problems could not bring suit under either the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act or under the state's Lemon Law because, as the statutes are written, one must be the owner of the car to have a claim.
(Updated July 2006)

New Jersey high court held that the state's Retail Installment Sales Act applies to consumer goods leased from rental centers since consumers have the option to buy. That also makes the agreements subject to the state's criminal usury restrictions.
(Updated July 2006)

Court dismissed a class action suit brought against a beer maker that claimed public nuisance and unjust enrichment by advertising campaigns that encouraged underage drinking and earned revenue from such activities. No direct evidence of the claims were provided.
(Updated May 2005)

Appeals court held that a consumer had the right to be granted class action status in a suit against a lender who improperly solicited for credit in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
(Updated April 2005)

New Jersey appeals court held that for a real estate agent to tell buyers that a house they were interested in buying was in a certain school district rather than another one can be a violation of the state Consumer Fraud Act.
(Updated April 2005)

Nevada high court held that unless Congress specifies otherwise, state courts generally have jurisdiction to hear cases involving federal law. A Nevada consumer can sue a company in Nevada court for sending unsolicited faxes in violation of federal law.
(Updated March 2005)