Showing 5 posts in Unfair Trade Practices.
Fraud claims are generally ill-suited for class action treatment. In nearly any class action involving fraud, plaintiffs face an uphill battle in establishing class-wide exposure to the alleged misrepresentations, which is only an initial element of the claim. A recent federal court decision (Simmons v. Author Solutions, LLC, No. 13cv2801, 2015 WL 4002243 (July 1, 2015)) nicely illustrates the difficulty plaintiffs face. Read More ›
A recent case highlights the difficulty of certifying many types of consumer protection class actions in the wake of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011). In Friedman v. Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., No. 12-cv-02432, 2015 WL 361232 (D. Col. Jan. 27, 2015), the court denied certification of a class of consumers who rented cars, largely on the basis of a lack of commonality. Read More ›
In re Nexium Antitrust Litigation Holds that Class May Include de Minimis Number of Uninjured Members
Last Wednesday the First Circuit Court of Appeals, in a split decision, upheld class certification of consumers and insurance companies that alleged they were forced to pay higher prices for Nexium, a heartburn drug, in violation of state antitrust laws. In re Nexium Antitrust Litigation, 2015 WL 265548 (Jan. 21, 2015). The court found that a few uninjured members in a class does not prevent class certification. Read More ›
Transportation broker, Uber, now faces a class action related to “Safe Rides Fee” that company adds to every fare. Uber charges a $1 fee for every ride allegedly to subsidize the cost of “industry leading” background checks of drivers. According to a class action lawsuit filed in federal court in San Francisco on December 24, 2014, Uber’s “Safe Rides Fee” is unfair and unenforceable because Uber’s background checks are no different than typical industry security checks. Cab companies usually require all drivers to undergo a background check and fingerprinting to confirm the identity of the drivers. Uber requires every driver to submit a name for a background check, but Uber does not require the driver to submit to fingerprinting to confirm the driver’s identity. Read More ›
Class representatives recently filed suit against national retailers The Gap Inc., Banana Republic LLC, and Saks Fifth Avenue LLC, alleging that the defendants inappropriately mark certain items in a manner that is unfair and unlawful. In Malik v. Saks Fifth Avenue LLC and Rubenstein v. The Gap Inc., both venued in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, the claimants allege that the defendants deceptively mark the price of certain items in a manner that manipulates the consumer into purchasing the item. The claimants assert that Saks Fifth Avenue marks items at outlet retail locations with two different prices. One price is the “Market Price,” which represents what the consumer would pay at a traditional retail location, while the second “Retail Price” represents the outlet price. Consequently, according to the claimants, the consumer believes that he or she is obtaining a significant discount. The claimants assert, however, that Saks Fifth Avenue manufactures the items for sale specifically at the outlet location, and the items are never on sale at the “Market Price” in a typical retail location. Read More ›
Ask the Blogger
Do you have a topic that you would like discussed in a future blog article? Please let us know. If you have a confidential question regarding a blog article, please feel free to contact the article's author directly, or let us know if you would like for someone to contact you directly.
Stephen E. Embry is a member of the Firm's class action, privacy and mass tort groups. He frequently defends participants in consumer class actions and mass tort litigation. Stephen is a national litigator and advisor who is experienced in developing solutions to complex litigation and corporate problems.