Federally-Backed Debt Collection Exception Not the Supreme Court’s Cup of T(CPA)
Welcome to Class Dismissed
Morrison Foerster’s Class Dismissed blog provides insights and reports on the latest news, developments, and trends that affect consumer-facing companies. Subscribe to receive the latest updates by attorneys from our nationally recognized Consumer Class Action and Product Liability practices.
- Barr v. Am. Ass’n of Political Consultants, Inc. , 2020 WL 3633780, 591 U.S. __ (2020).[1] Earlier this month, the Supreme Court held, in a fractured decision yielding multiple concurring or dissenting opinions, that the 2015 government-debt exception to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act... ›
U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision to Review a Pair of FTCA Cases Could Spell a Sea Change in FTC’s Enforcement Authority
By: Jessica Kaufman, Julie O'Neill and Lena H. Hughes
The 1914 Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA) created the Federal Trade Commission (FTC or “the Commission”) and empowered it to prevent, and provide redress to consumers affected by, unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. In 1973,... ›Ninth Circuit Addresses FCRA Standing Analysis and Emphasizes Importance of Remedial Measures
By: Nancy R. Thomas
The Ninth Circuit recently issued an opinion addressing standing and willfulness under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). In Ramirez v. TransUnion ,[1] the Ninth Circuit affirmed a jury verdict and punitive damages award, although it reduced those damages by a third. The court... ›Ninth Circuit Holds Plaintiffs Not Entitled To Equitable Restitution Under UCL/CLRA If Adequate Remedy At Law Is Available
Earlier this month, the Ninth Circuit held that state law cannot expand or confine a federal court’s power to issue equitable restitution because federal courts are bound by traditional equitable principles, which require, among other things, a showing of an inadequate remedy at law.... ›Schein On: Supreme Court to Decide Key Arbitration Delegation Question
The Henry Schein arbitration battle is making its way to the Supreme Court again. The Court recently granted Henry Schein, Inc.’s certiorari petition to answer the question of “Whether a provision in an arbitration agreement that exempts certain claims from arbitration negates an otherwise... ›- - Coronavirus (COVID-19), FDA, Drug & Medical Device, Product Liability, Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)
FDA Signals Flexibility with COVID-19 Tests
By: Erin M. Bosman and Julie Y. Park
A bipartisan group of experts in economics, health, technology, and ethics recommended that the U.S. scale up COVID-19 testing—5 million per day by June, 20 million per day by midsummer—in order to fully re-mobilize the economy. Consistent with this, FDA has taken various steps... › Class Action Litigation in the Wake of COVID-19
By: Tiffany Cheung and Michael Burshteyn
Class action claims have taken on a new twist in the wake of COVID-19. Already, the global pandemic has generated litigation across a broad swath of areas, including privacy, data security, and consumer, among others. To date, hundreds of business lawsuits related to the... ›- - Trials
Status of Bay Area Jury Trials
By: Arturo J. González
On Thursday, May 7, the American Board of Trial Advocates sponsored a discussion with the presiding judges from five Bay Area counties: San Francisco, San Mateo, Contra Costa, Alameda, and Santa Clara. The panel addressed the current state of jury trials in the Bay... › COVID-19 Alert: FDA Updates Antibody Test Policy
By: Erin M. Bosman and Julie Y. Park
Serology tests could play a critical role in the fight against COVID-19. Serology tests may help determine who can donate convalescent plasma—a part of the blood containing antibodies—which is currently being explored as an investigational treatment for those with COVID-19. Convalescent plasma has been... ›California Supreme Court: Civil Penalty Claims Brought by Government Under UCL and FAL Should Be Determined by Court—Not Jury
By: Claudia M. Vetesi
The California Supreme Court has confirmed that claims for civil penalties brought by government entities under California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”)[1] and False Advertising Law (“FAL”)[2] should be decided by a judge—not a jury. See Nationwide Biweekly Administration Inc. et al. v. Superior Court... ›