Consumer Protection Cases
Massachusetts Rent-A-Center –(Consumer Protection)
Joy Silva and Jaaziel Costa v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., Civil Action No. 3:08-cv-30094 (MAP) (D. MA), (U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts)
Along with our co-counsel, we filed a lawsuit against Rent-A-Center, Inc., Rent-A-Center East, Inc., and RentWay, Inc. on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of consumers who rented items from one of these interrelated corporate entities. The lawsuit claims Rent-A-Center violated the Massachusetts Retail Installment Sales Act (“RISA”) by failing to provide disclosures required by the law and charging interest vastly in excess of that permitted by the statute. Furthermore the lawsuit contends Rent-A-Center violated Massachusetts’ unfair trade practices law by unfairly and deceptively hiding from consumers the interest in the contracts and the violation of Massachusetts law. The plaintiff and the class are seeking a declaratory relief, injunctive relief and damages.
For additional information, please contact Charles J. LaDuca.
Honda Hybrid – False Advertising
John True v. American Honda Motor Co., Civil Action No. 07-287 (VAP) (U.S. District Court for the Central District of California)
Along with co-counsel, we filed this first of its kind national lawsuit on behalf of John True and a nationwide class. The suit challenges representations of fuel economy in advertising for the Honda Civic Hybrid. The complaint alleges that despite Honda's knowledge of the inaccuracy of its fuel efficiency statistics, the company failed to put the advertising in appropriate context, providing "watered-down" disclaimers, which materially differed from those required by the EPA, and a fuel savings calculator that misrepresented the savings actually achievable in the Civic Hybrid. After briefing and oral argument the District Court Judge denied Honda's motion to dismiss the complaint and the case is beginning the discovery phase.
For additional information, please contact William H. Anderson.
Inphonic - Rebates
In re InPhonic, Inc. Wireless Phone Rebate Litigation, Misc. Action No. 06-0507 (ESH) (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia)
Along with our co-counsel, we filed a lawsuit on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of consumers who purchased wireless phones and related services from InPhonic, Inc. The complaint alleges that InPhonic advertised low after-rebate-sales prices to solicit customers, but wrongfully implemented business practices that severely restricted the ability of customers to actually obtain the promised rebates. The Attorney General of the District of Columbia, making similar allegations, has also filed suit against the company.
For additional information, please contact Jonathan W. Cuneo or Alexandra C. Warren
Joe Camel - Unlawful Advertising
Cordova v. Liggett Group, Inc., Case No. 691824 (California Superior Court, San Francisco County); Mangini v. R, J Reynolds Tobacco Co., Case No. 939389 (California Superior Court, San Francisco County)
We were a key part of the legal team in the first case that challenged the "Joe Camel" campaign as a violation of California's unfair competition/consumer protection law. We were also part of the legal team that secured over $12 billion in settlement funds to cities and counties in California. As a result of this litigation, R.J Reynolds' "youth targeting" documents-perhaps the most significant set of tobacco documents ever to be made public-were released. R.J Reynolds admitted that the Mangini case was "an early, significant and unique driver" that led to the phase out of the Joe Camel campaign. Congressman Henry Waxman described the members of the legal team, including Jonathan W. Cuneo, as "real American heroes."
"Made in USA" - False Advertising
Benson v. Kwikset Corp., No. 00CC01275 (California Superior Court, Orange County); Colgan v Leatherman Tool Group Inc., Nos. BC 247 889, 278713 (California Superior Court, Los Angeles County)
We have been a national leader in representing clients challenging advertisements that inaccurately label merchandise as "Made in USA" cases in violation of California "Made in USA" requirements and unfair competition/consumer protection law. In Kwikset, we led a legal team that won significant injunctive relief after a three-week trial. The complaint alleged that Kwikset closed a manufacturing facility in Anaheim California and opened a manufacturing faculty in Mexico, where it conducted labor-intensive tasks, thus saving millions of dollars. The displaced American workers received government benefits under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Nonetheless, the defendants continued to market their products as "Made in USA" and "All American Made." Kwikset appealed the trial court's judgment and the court of appeal upheld the judgment. However, while the case was still pending, the voters of California passed Proposition 64, which changes the requirements for consumer actions under the Unfair Competition Law. The case has been remanded to the trial court for further proceedings to allow the Plaintiff to amend the complaint to meet the new requirements of Proposition 64.
In Leatherman, the firm was co-lead counsel in a case that charged the Leatherman Tool Group with inaccurately labeling many of its tools as "Made in USA" when many components were actually made outside the United States. After a hard-fought trial in early 2004, the Superior Court entered a significant corrective advertising program and awarded over $12 million in restitution. The California Court of Appeals reversed the restitution award in 2006 and remanded the case for modification of the injunctive order. The Superior Court modified the injunction, and the case is now on appeal.
For additional information, please contact Jonathan W. Cuneo or Michael G. Lenett.
Telephone Tax (Federal) - Unlawful Exaction
Sloan v. United States, No. 06-483 (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia).
The firm currently serves as co-lead counsel in a multi-district litigation case challenging the collection of the federal excise tax on long-distance telephone communications. Despite the clear inapplicability of the tax, the government has forced telephone service providers to collect the tax for more than a decade. In recent years, several large corporations filed private lawsuits challenging the tax. As the result of these lawsuits, five U.S. Courts of Appeal held that the telephone tax was illegal as applied. We seek the return of all money illegally collected on behalf of a class comprised of all individuals or entities with claims of less than $10,000. The government has agreed to return less than half of the money it illegally collected, and to do so in a manner that disadvantages senior citizens, individuals who do not file income taxes, small businesses, and non-profits. In fact, a Government Accountability Office study released in April 2007 indicates that participation in the government program instituted through 2006 Income Tax Returns was very low. The government's motion to dismiss was recently denied in one of the consolidated cases in the multi-district litigation. If successful, this case will provide billions of dollars of relief to millions of Americans.
For additional information, please contact Jonathan W. Cuneo or William H. Anderson.
Telephone Tax (State) - Unlawful Taxation
Granados v. County of Los Angeles, No. BC361470 (California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles); Ardon v. City of Los Angeles, No. BC361469 (California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles); McWilliams v. City of Long Beach, No. BC36359 (California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles)
We serve as co-lead counsel in three pending actions filed on behalf of telephone users who have been wrongfully assessed taxes on their telephone bills. Like a companion federal case in which we represent the plaintiffs (Sloan v. United States, which is described on this website), these cases seek the return of equivalent local taxes. Unlike the federal government, many cities and counties in California, and throughout the country, have not yet acknowledged the illegality of the tax or made plans to return any of the illegally collected funds. We seek the return of these illegally collected local taxes on behalf of literally millions of telephone users.
For additional information, please contact Jonathan W. Cuneo or William H. Anderson.
Texas Prison - Privacy
Dennis v. Metromail Corp., No 96004451 (Texas District Court, Travis County, 200th Judicial District)
We served as co-lead counsel in this path-breaking consumer privacy case. The complaint charged that Metromail, acting through subcontractors, processed personal information from shopping questionnaires by contracting to have high security Texas prisoners "key" the information. As a result, the lead plaintiff received an extremely offensive, sexually explicit letter from a convicted sexual offender. The firm's investigation found that the personal information of almost two million Americans was processed using maximum security prisoners. The landmark settlement provided for the establishment of a settlement fund and significant non-monetary relief.
For additional information, contact Jonathan W. Cuneo.