Posts

Federal Law on Automatic Renewals

Federal Law on Automatic Renewals

/in /by

Federal Law on Automatic Renewals

Federal law on automatic renewals has gotten stronger and more far-reaching in recent years. This has come in response to states like California that have started to take the lead when it comes to protecting consumers against deceptive advertising and business fraud. There are several prominent laws at both the California state level and the federal level that govern retail subscription programs and automatic renewal programs, including the FTC Rule on Automatic Renewals. Additionally, both state and federal agencies have begun increasing their enforcement of these laws in recent years. For example, the California Automatic Renewal Task Force (CART) makes sure that businesses comply with California’s Automatic Renewal Law (ARL), while the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is actively enforcing federal laws regulating negative options and recurring contracts. Before contacting federal or state agencies, consumers who have been billed without consent for an auto-renewal subscription should speak with a qualified consumer protection attorney.

To learn more about the federal law on automatic renewal subscriptions, keep reading this blog.

What Is the Federal Trade Commission Rule on Auto-Renewals?

Companies that do business in California while offering automatic renewal and subscription programs must comply with applicable state and federal laws, including the California Automatic Renewal Law (ARL). In fact, California has served as a model for automatic renewal legislation passed by other states, as well as federal statutes and rules that govern auto-renewals.

Federal law uses slightly different terminology for automatic renewal subscriptions: they are instead referred to as “negative option plans.” Basically, a negative option plan is one that is automatically renewed if the consumer fails to take any kind of affirmative action to cancel or not renew it.

The California false advertising lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP represent plaintiffs in civil litigation both individually and as members of class action lawsuits. We also regularly appear in both state and federal courts, so we are very familiar with the relevant consumer protection laws.

How Is the Federal Automatic Renewal Law Enforced?

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforces federal law on automatic renewals and the Negative Option Rule. Federal guidelines for automatic renewals tend to focus on up-front disclosures from businesses, informed consent from customers, and uncomplicated cancellation procedures.

In addition to the FTC, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is also involved in enforcement of federal laws concerning automatic renewal and subscription practices.

Proposed Amendment to FTC Rule on Automatic Renewals

The FTC proposed an amendment to the agency rule on automatic renewals that could have a serious impact on how companies do business in California and other states. When the FTC asked for public input on auto-renewal policies, the response was overwhelming: the federal agency received thousands of comments from consumers who complained that businesses were deceptively renewing subscriptions without consent.

Some pro-business organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have objected to the FTC’s proposed rules for auto renewal subscription services, which the group says would “impose substantial and burdensome regulations on the business community.” But similar consumer fraud regulations already exist in California: statutes like the Automatic Renewal Law (ARL), the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) all provide strong protections for consumers against companies that do business in the state.

If the FTC rule change is approved and goes into effect, it will certainly affect businesses that offer automatic renewal plans in California and other states. That’s because federal law would allow for the imposition of civil penalties of up to $50,000 for each violation of the law.

Other Federal Laws Regulating Automatic Renewals: ROSCA and TSR

The Federal Trade Commission rule on negative options is the main federal law that governs automatic renewal offers by companies. In addition to the FTC rule, there are a couple of other federal statutes that also apply to automatic renewals:

  • The Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA)
  • The Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR)

Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA)

Under federal law, there are disclosure requirements for auto-renewal terms when a customer signs up for a subscription online. The Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA) requires companies to clearly and conspicuously disclose “all material terms of the transaction” prior to obtaining the customer’s billing information. ROSCA also imposes on businesses a requirement to obtain express informed consent for an auto-renewal plan before getting customers’ billing information.

Unfortunately for consumers, ROSCA has limited application to auto-renewal plans because it only applies to online purchases.

Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR)

Another important federal law governing automatic renewals is the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). The TSR requires certain disclosures when a telemarketer offers a product or service that includes an automatic renewal subscription, such as the material terms and conditions of the purchase.

State Laws: What Is the California Law on Automatic Renewals of Subscriptions?

California’s Automatic Renewal Law (ARL) goes even further than federal law by explicitly prohibiting companies from auto-renewing subscriptions without first obtaining affirmative consent from the subscriber. That type of consent can only be given when the customer is aware of what exactly they are agreeing to, so this means companies must “clearly and conspicuously” disclose the subscription terms, including the price of the service, length of the subscription, and any recurring charges. Clear and conspicuous disclosure can be achieved by using all-caps, highlighted text, colored text, boldface font, and anything else that might contrast or differentiate an auto-subscription from other terms or conditions.

Canceling Subscriptions Under California’s ARL

The California Auto Renewal Task Force (CART) is a group of district attorneys in Los Angeles County, San Diego County, Santa Barbara County, Santa Clara County, and Santa Cruz County who enforce the ARL against companies that mislead and deceive California consumers with confusing subscription policies that automatically renew without authorization and that can be difficult to cancel afterwards.

Doug Allen, an assistant district attorney with the Santa Cruz County District Attorney’s Office and also a member of CART, says that the ARL is specifically designed “to make it as easy to get out of [an auto-renewal subscription] as it was to get into it.” The ARL stipulates that businesses must provide full disclosure to customers about the terms and conditions of all subscription renewal plans, including automatic renewals. Additionally, the ARL requires businesses to make it easy for customers to cancel a subscription on the backend.

Most Common Violations of the California ARL

Some of the most egregious violations of the California Automatic Renewal Law (ARL) involve companies that intentionally make it tough for a customer to cancel by bouncing the customer around when they call or email. For example, a retailer might inform the customer that they will need to speak to a “supervisor” who is conveniently never available. This is done with the full intention of ensuring that the customer remains enrolled in the subscription program. When a customer tries to cancel on the company’s website, the site needs to be easy to navigate and the cancellation process needs to be simple. The ARL also prohibits businesses from attempting to drag out the cancellation with an online survey; any surveys must be provided after the cancellation is complete.

Contact the California Consumer Protection Lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP

Tauler Smith LLP is a law firm that handles consumer fraud litigation in both state and federal courts across the United States. Our consumer protection lawyers have extensive experience representing plaintiffs in these matters, so we understand the nuances of automatic renewal laws that may apply in your particular case. If you were billed for a monthly subscription contract that was automatically renewed without your consent, we can assist you. Call or email us now to schedule a free initial consultation.

Textbook Company Chegg ARL Claim

Tauler Smith Files ARL Claim Against Textbook Company Chegg

/in /by

Textbook Company Chegg ARL Claim

Tauler Smith LLP filed an ARL claim against textbook company Chegg for allegedly renewing customer subscriptions without notice or authorization. KNTV, which serves as the NBC outlet for the San Francisco Bay Area, reported that the civil lawsuit was filed in federal court on behalf of a student who rented a book for her law school class. It is not uncommon for consumers who make what they thought was a one-time purchase online to later realize that they have been charged again – and again! – for an auto-renewing subscription. The California Automatic Renewal Law (ARL) makes it illegal for companies like Chegg to engage in this kind of deception. The statute also gives consumers the ability to pursue damages of up to $2,500 for each ARL violation. California false advertising attorney Robert Tauler is leading the fight for consumers against companies that violate the rights of customers with deceptive auto-renewal policies.

Click here to view the NBC Bay Area News report on the latest lawsuit filed under California’s ARL. To learn more about the Automatic Renewal Law claims against Chegg, keep reading this blog.

NBC Bay Area News Investigates Automatic Renewal Law Claim Against Chegg

A recent report by KNTV, the Bay Area affiliate of NBC, details the battle being fought by consumers who learn that they were automatically enrolled in a Chegg subscription service without their permission. The KNTV investigative team learned that many of these consumers have also found it nearly impossible to cancel the subscription and to get a refund for the unauthorized charges.

The plaintiff in the case is Sheri Moyer, a law student who needed a textbook for one of her law school classes. That book would have cost her upwards of $120, so instead she rented a digital textbook for $19.99 from Santa Clara-based Chegg. What is Chegg? Chegg markets itself as an education technology company that offers online tutoring, textbook sales, and both digital and physical textbook rentals to students in a variety of fields.

Moyer only needed the law school course book to complete a short class assignment, so it made sense for her to rent it instead of buying it. She paid for a 30-day subscription on Chegg and finished her assignment. But she was shocked when she checked her credit card statement the following month to see that Chegg charged her for another 30-day subscription. It turned out that the textbook rental company had auto billed her without authorization. To make matters worse, Chegg refused to refund Moyer’s money because “they had a zero-refund policy.”

Tauler Smith LLP Files Consumer Protection Lawsuit Against Chegg

Sheri Moyer has enlisted the Los Angeles law firm Tauler Smith LLP to help her file a civil suit against Chegg in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Chegg contested the lawsuit by getting the case moved to arbitration. Moyer wanted the case to go to trial so that she would have an opportunity to tell her story to a jury, but a federal judge ruled that the parties must first present their arguments to an arbitrator. The judge also ruled that the parties will need to provide the court with regular updates on the arbitration process.

Tauler Smith LLP frequently represents plaintiffs in consumer fraud actions and automatic renewal lawsuits filed in California courts. For example, our legal team recently filed an ARL claim against a casting company accused of deceptively renewing customer subscriptions to their service.

Consumer Class Action Lawsuit: Chegg Accused of Automatically Renewing Subscriptions Without Permission

In the Chegg textbook rental case, Sheri Moyer is suing for reimbursement of fraudulent charges, as well as statutory damages. That’s because the ARL allows consumers to recover $2,500 for each violation of the auto-renewal statute.

More than anything, Moyer wants to make sure that the online textbook rental company is held accountable for their deceptive actions, which allegedly included failing to disclose their auto-renewal policy. Moyer’s attorney, consumer advocate Robert Tauler, filed the suit in the federal court in San Jose because he wants to establish legal precedent throughout the state and send a strong message to other companies that trick customers into auto-renewing subscriptions. Tauler believes this is an important business fraud case that warrants class action status, which is why he is asking other consumers who have been charged for automatically renewing subscriptions to come forward. By exercising their legal rights, they can help put a stop to the fraud being committed by many online retailers that do business in California. Consumers who join the class action lawsuit can also recover statutory damages of $2,500 for every ARL violation committed by the company.

Contact the California Consumer Protection Attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP

The California consumer protection lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP regularly appear in both state and federal courts on behalf of consumers who were fraudulently charged for automatically renewing subscriptions. Our legal team is currently looking for plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against the educational support services company Chegg. If you signed up for a textbook subscription with Chegg or any other type of subscription with an online retailer, we can help you file a civil suit for financial compensation.

Call 310-590-3927 or send an email today.

Tom Girardi Indicted for Embezzlement

Tom Girardi Indicted for Embezzlement

/in /by

Tom Girardi Indicted for Embezzlement

Disgraced California lawyer Tom Girardi was indicted for embezzlement by a federal grand jury. The charges stem from allegations that Girardi engaged in highly unethical and illegal behavior, which included using private judges affiliated with the national arbitration company JAMS to steal millions of dollars from his clients. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the felony charges against Girardi after the grand jury formally indicted him. U.S. Attorney Martin Estrada observed that Girardi “preyed on the very people who trusted and relied upon him the most—his clients—and brought disrepute upon the entire legal profession.”

For more information about Tom Girardi’s indictment and his connection with JAMS, keep reading this blog.

Who Are Tom Girardi and Erika Jayne?

Tom Girardi used to be a well-respected attorney. For many years, the prominent Los Angeles lawyer was known for being a dogged defender of the powerless as they filed class action lawsuits against corporations. As the founder of California law firm Girardi & Keese, he represented plaintiffs in a number of high-profile cases, including Brian Stow’s civil suit against Major League Baseball. Stow was the San Francisco Giants fan who sustained severe injuries during an attack at a Los Angeles Dodgers game. Girardi also represented the plaintiffs in the case against Pacific Gas & Electric Co. dramatized in the Julia Roberts movie Erin Brockovich.

Outside of the courtroom, Girardi became known for being the husband of “Real Housewives of Beverly Hills” star Erika Jayne, who eventually filed for divorce from Girardi. They were married for 21 years. After the split, the couple listed their Pasadena home for sale at a price of $13 million. Jayne has also been accused of illegally using funds meant for Girardi’s clients to cover her own personal expenses, including the purchase of expensive diamond earrings.

Federal Grand Jury in California Indicts Tom Girardi on Wire Fraud Charges

As a plaintiff’s attorney in California, Tom Girardi was responsible for negotiating settlements in mass tort lawsuits. Instead of sending the settlement funds to his clients, however, Girardi allegedly deposited the money into law firm accounts that he later accessed for his own personal use. A federal grand jury in California has now indicted Girardi on charges that he embezzled $15 million from clients over a period of 10 years, resulting in the DOJ bringing formal charges against him for five counts of wire fraud. If Girardi is convicted of wire fraud, he could be sentenced to 20 years in federal prison.

Martin Estrada, the United States Attorney for the Central District of California, issued a statement about the case after the grand jury indictment was announced. Estrada said that Girardi is “accused of engaging in a widespread scheme to steal from clients and lie to them to cover up the fraud.”

FBI Acting Assistant Director in Charge Amir Ehsaei also weighed in on the charges against Girardi. Ehsaei said that the disgraced attorney “created a mirage over several years in order to disguise the fact that he was robbing clients of large sums of money…to fund his lavish lifestyle.” Ehsaei observed that Girardi’s alleged theft came at the expense of clients who were enduring significant hardships of their own as they desperately awaited settlement funds to cover medical bills and other expenses. The clients’ unfamiliarity with the legal process made it possible for Girardi to take advantage of them.

What’s Next in the Criminal Case Against Tom Girardi?

Last year, Tom Girardi was reportedly diagnosed with Alzheimer’s and dementia. At his initial appearance in federal criminal court, United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson ordered a mental competency hearing to determine whether Girardi is fit to stand trial on the criminal charges. In the meantime, Girardi’s bond was set at $250,000 and he was released to the custody of his brother Robert Girardi. The next hearing will occur in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The Girardi Keese law firm is no longer operational, having declared bankruptcy with more than $100 million in total debt. Additionally, Girardi was disbarred as a result of the alleged embezzlement and cannot act as an attorney in California. He has been living at the Belmont Village Senior Living Facility in Burbank, CA.

Erika Jayne and Others Accused of Business Fraud with Tom Girardi

Also criminally charged along with Tom Girardi is Christopher Kamon, who served as the chief financial officer of Girardi’s law firm for more than a decade. According to law enforcement officials, Kamon was the person who handled financial accounting for the firm. Federal prosecutors believe that Kamon committed wire fraud offenses by embezzling client funds for personal expenses.

Additionally, Girardi’s son-in-law David Lira has been accused of fraud in connection with the Girardi & Keese firm. A federal grand jury in Chicago issued an indictment against both Girardi and Lira on charges filed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office. They have been accused of stealing more than $3 million in settlement funds from clients whose families were killed in the 2018 Boeing Lion Air Flight 610 crash in Indonesia.

Erika Jayne Sued for Fraud

A civil suit has also been filed that accuses Tom Girardi’s estranged wife, reality TV star Erika Jayne, of participating in the illegal fraud scheme. The trustee overseeing the bankruptcy of Girardi’s law firm filed the lawsuit against the Real Housewives star after reportedly discovering that Jayne received $25 million in transfers from the law firm to her company, EJ Global LLC. She then allegedly used the money to pay personal expenses, such as her credit card bill, personal assistant salaries, and a fashion and makeup team. Jayne has denied having any knowledge of Girardi’s alleged embezzlement of client funds.

JAMS Mediators Allegedly Helped Tom Girardi Embezzle Money from Clients

According to the Department of Justice, Tom Girardi was able to get away with embezzling client funds by placing onerous requirements on clients to access their settlement money. For example, Girardi often told clients that they needed to get authorizations from JAMS judges in order to receive the funds. The JAMS private judges were overseeing the lawsuit settlements and had control over how and when the funds were distributed. Many of these judges had personal relationships with Girardi, creating an obvious conflict of interest for the alternative dispute resolution company.

Over the years, there have been many other instances of JAMS judges being biased in favor of certain litigants and showing favoritism in their rulings. In fact, several JAMS mediators and arbitrators benefited financially from their involvement in Girardi’s fraud by charging as much as $1,500 per hour for their work on his cases. Beyond that, JAMS reportedly made millions of dollars by providing mediators to oversee Girardi’s settlements.

Contact the Los Angeles Arbitration Attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP

Tauler Smith LLP is a California law firm that helps individuals, small business owners, and others bring class action lawsuits against JAMS. If you were involved in an arbitration or mediation that was administered by JAMS, you may have a legal claim against the company for the way they handled your case. Call 310-590-3927 or email us today to discuss your options with one of our experienced Los Angeles arbitration attorneys.

Shipping Insurance Claims & UCL

Shipping Insurance Claims and the UCL

/in /by

Shipping Insurance Claims & UCL

Many companies that offer shipping insurance on e-commerce sites are violating California insurance laws, which have strict requirements about who is allowed to offer insurance and how that insurance can be offered. Moreover, California’s insurance laws can serve as a predicate for civil lawsuits brought under other statutes, including the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL). When it comes to shipping insurance claims and the UCL, there is strong legal precedent in favor of consumers who are charged for insurance by an unlicensed agent. Additionally, the shipping insurance offered by online sellers is often just a surcharge on services already being provided, which is business fraud that can also be the basis for a civil suit.

To learn more about how California consumer protection laws can be used to file a shipping insurance lawsuit against e-commerce sellers, keep reading.

Filing a Shipping Insurance Lawsuit Under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL)

Some companies that offer shipping insurance on their e-commerce websites expressly label it as “insurance,” while other companies call it “safe ship” or use another term. In fact, it is common for online sellers to refer to an insurance fee by some other name. For example, the plaintiff in Miller v. Travel Guard Group alleged that the company mislabeled the travel insurance fee on their website in order to get around the state prohibition against unlicensed agents selling insurance. Regardless of what term is used, however, both the California Insurance Code and the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) protect consumers against unlawful offers of insurance.

Section 1631 of the California Insurance Code imposes licensing requirements on any entity that seeks to sell insurance in the state. If a company violates the California Insurance Code by attempting to sell insurance as an unlicensed agent, consumers may be able to bring a UCL claim. Additionally, companies that hide a shipping insurance charge on a purchase could be exposed to lawsuits under the UCL for false, misleading, deceptive, and unlawful marketing and sales practices.

Section 17200 of the UCL

The California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) is set forth in Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. The statute defines “unfair competition” as:

  1. Any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.
  2. Unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising.

The UCL is a sweeping law that is meant to protect both consumers and businesses. In fact, the statute has been interpreted broadly by California courts to cover a wide variety of business acts and consumer transactions, including antitrust violations, intellectual property claims, employment claims, misbranded drug products, and disputes over shipping insurance charges.

Both federal and California courts have held that companies may be sued for breach of contract and unfair competition when they violate state insurance laws. In fact, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said that the California Insurance Code can serve as a predicate for a claim brought under the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) even though the UCL does not explicitly provide for a private right of action for shipping insurance claims. In Miller v. Travel Guard Group, the California Northern District Court went even further by ruling that consumers may bring a claim under the UCL based on both an illegal agent theory and an illegal premium theory when the insurance fee is automatically included in the total price and the customer is not given an opportunity to opt out of paying it.

Only Licensed Agents Can Sell Insurance in California

California has strict laws regulating exactly who can sell insurance. Whether it’s auto insurance, property insurance, health insurance, general liability insurance, or shipping insurance, only licensed agents are allowed to offer insurance to customers. One way that California law protects consumers against insurance fraud is by requiring many types of insurance agents (e.g., home and auto insurance) to file bonds with the state insurance commission.

In order to charge customers for shipping insurance, a company must comply with California’s insurance laws. This means that insurance agents need to be registered with the state. Beyond that, owners, insurance agents, and even non-licensed employees must provide fingerprints that are kept on file with the state. All of this is in addition to standard business certification requirements, such as securing a certificate of good standing if the company is a corporation and a certificate of organization if the company is an LLC.

Friedman v. AARP Established Precedent for Shipping Insurance Claims in California

In Friedman v. AARP, Inc., the Ninth Circuit Court issued an important ruling that set precedent for subsequent cases involving offers of insurance to California consumers. The plaintiff in Friedman was a Medicare recipient who purchased UnitedHealth supplemental health insurance coverage through the AARP (previously known as the American Association of Retired Persons). Since AARP earned a 5% commission on the sale, they were essentially acting as an insurance seller without a license. This would be in direct violation of California Insurance Code § 1631. That statute prohibits anyone from soliciting, negotiating, or effecting an insurance contract unless the person holds a valid license from the California Commissioner of Insurance. California Insurance Code § 1633 goes even further by explicitly prohibiting an unlicensed company from “transacting” insurance regardless of whether the company reports itself as an insurance agent.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in the case was Jerald Friedman. He was one of several AARP members who filed a class action against AARP because the organization allegedly charged inflated insurance rates for Medigap coverage. (Medigap policies provide supplemental health insurance for costs that are not already covered by Medicare.) These exaggerated charges allegedly stemmed from a hidden commission that AARP was collecting.

The lower court in Friedman dismissed a class action brought by the plaintiff under the UCL. The Ninth Circuit then reversed that decision because the federal appellate court determined that AARP’s fee arrangement qualified as a commission on every insurance sale. In other words, AARP was acting as an insurance agent by selling insurance.

UCL Violation

Section 17200 of the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) explicitly prohibits companies from engaging in “any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.” AARP was accused of violating the UCL by committing the unlawful act of selling insurance without a license.

Since AARP is not licensed to sell insurance in California, it is unlawful for the group to offer insurance to its California members. AARP marketed the Medigap policy to its members in a number of ways, including television ads, websites, and materials sent directly through the mail. A lot of these advertisements included text reading, “This is a solicitation of insurance.” Although AARP later tried to describe its insurance commission as a “royalty,” the federal government determined that it was still a commission being charged on top of the typical monthly premium. This meant that AARP was essentially acting as an insurance agent despite not having a license to do so in California.

Unlawful to Conceal a Shipping Insurance Charge in California

Under California law, there is an expectation that consumers will be able to provide informed consent for purchases they make online. Unfortunately, some businesses trick customers into paying more for shipping insurance with hidden or confusing features on their e-commerce websites, particularly when it comes to placing and finalizing orders. The businesses generate additional revenues by offering a service that they are not legally allowed to offer without a valid, state-issued license.

Companies that do business in California and use deceptive marketing and sales tactics could be subject to civil suits for violating the UCL. That’s because the statute prohibits false, misleading, deceptive, and fraudulent acts or practices, which may include attempts by the business to deceive customers about hidden shipping insurance fees. An experienced Los Angeles insurance claim lawyer can help consumers bring a lawsuit against companies that violate the UCL by making an unlawful offer of shipping insurance.

UCL Claims

When consumers unknowingly purchase shipping insurance on a website due to misleading and/or deceptive information, they suffer an injury. The Unfair Competition Law can be used as the basis for a shipping insurance lawsuit if the defendant violated the “fraudulent” prong of the statute by misleading customers about the additional charge. In these cases, the plaintiff will need to establish two elements to bring a successful claim: (1) that the company deceived the public in some way either in an advertisement or during the checkout process; and (2) that the consumer relied upon the company’s statements or advertisement.

There are several ways that a company could violate the UCL by attempting to charge customers for shipping insurance:

  • Confusing Language: The company might use ambiguous and confusing language to describe the insurance charge, which means that consumers won’t necessarily understand what it is that they are purchasing.
  • Hiding the Insurance Charge: It’s also possible that the company might hide the total purchase price from the consumer by failing to clearly inform them of the total cost when shipping insurance is included, or by failing to allow the consumer to edit their order once a shipping insurance charge has been added.
  • Lack of Consent: In the most egregious cases, the company might not even give the consumer an opportunity to consent to the shipping insurance charge. There have been cases in which a company automatically charges for shipping insurance unless the purchaser clicks on a random and inconspicuous “decline” button before completing the order.

When a company fails to disclose information that consumers need in order to make informed decisions about a purchase, it could be a violation of the UCL. Whether it’s a misleading advertisement or a concealed charge on a company’s website order form, California consumers may be able to bring a shipping insurance claim under the UCL.

CLRA Claims

This type of conduct by a business might also violate the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), which prohibits certain unlawful acts involving consumers. For example, the CLRA explicitly forbids companies from “advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised.”

The ordering and check-out processes on some e-commerce websites are confusing and possibly even deceptive. As a result, it’s very possible that consumers are unknowingly purchasing shipping insurance as an upcharge or add-on because websites don’t make the additional charge immediately apparent to site visitors. Moreover, it’s possible that some consumers would not have purchased the product at all if they had known about the shipping insurance charge. Worse yet, many consumers might not become aware of the additional charges until much later when their bank account or credit card is debited for the order.

Contact the Los Angeles False Advertising Lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP

Were you charged for shipping insurance while making a purchase on an e-commerce website? The Los Angeles false advertising lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP represent clients in civil lawsuits and class action lawsuits against companies that commit business fraud, including litigation involving shipping insurance claims against companies that illegally offer shipping insurance in online transactions. Call 310-590-3927 or email us to schedule a free initial consultation.

California Unfair Competition Law

California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL)

/in /by

California Unfair Competition Law

California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) is one of the most important consumer protection laws in the country. California courts tend to interpret the UCL broadly so that it applies to a wide range of unethical business practices. The statute explicitly prohibits companies from engaging in unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business actions. It also prohibits companies from using false advertising. Businesses that violate the UCL may be subject to penalties that include financial compensation, monetary fines, and injunctions to stop committing certain acts. This means that consumers who purchase a product or service from a business that violates the UCL may be able to have an experienced California consumer fraud lawyer file a lawsuit and seek financial restitution.

To learn more about the California Unfair Competition Law, keep reading this blog.

What Is the California Unfair Competition Law?

The California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) is codified in Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200. The UCL protects consumers against business fraud, false advertising, and other deceptive practices by placing limits on companies doing business in California. The statute also protects honest companies and ensures that competition remains fair and strong, with no one company allowed to stifle competition and gain a competitive advantage by breaking the law.

Importantly, the UCL applies to all private companies doing business in California. This means that if a company is based in another state, if they sell to consumers located in the state, or even if they advertise in the state, they can be sued under the UCL.

What Is “Unfair Competition”?

The California Unfair Competition Law defines “unfair competition” as any of the following:

  1. An unlawful business act or practice.
  2. An unfair business act or practice.
  3. A fraudulent business act or practice.
  4. Unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising.
  5. Any other act prohibited by the UCL.

Courts have interpreted the UCL broadly so that just about any violation of the law by a business can also constitute a violation, so long as the action or practice injured consumers or gave the business an advantage over its competitors. One of the most common examples of unfair competition in consumer transactions is when a company makes misrepresentations to customers about the type, quality, or cost of a product or service.

Deceptive Advertising

Examples of deceptive advertising that may violate the UCL include robocalling customers, using bait and switch advertising to trick customers, using fake endorsements in ads, exaggerating product descriptions, omitting important information about a product or service in an advertisement, manipulating prices, using false reference pricing in ads, and infringing on another company’s intellectual property.

Unlawful, Unfair, and Fraudulent Business Acts

The UCL defines “unlawful” business acts or practices as any action taken by a company that violates state or federal law. Even if the company committed the unlawful act just once, that can be enough to trigger legal action under the UCL.

An “unfair” business act or practice, as defined by the UCL, is typically committed by either a company or a business competitor. Generally speaking, a company violates the UCL when they attempt to sell goods or services that harm consumers. In the context of a business competitor, it is considered an unfair business act when the company does something that broadly undermines competition in the marketplace.

The UCL also prohibits “fraudulent” business acts or practices, which means any conduct that misleads or deceives consumers. When a consumer relies on false statements made by the company in an advertisement or at the point of sale and subsequently suffers an economic injury, they may be able to bring a UCL claim for restitution.

Private Right of Action Under Section 17200 of the UCL

The California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) allows both private parties and public prosecutors to take legal action against companies that commit fraudulent business acts. In most cases, an individual who has suffered an injury because of unfair competition must have their lawsuit filed by a county or city prosecutor. When the lawsuit is filed as a class action, however, a consumer may bring the action as a private plaintiff.

Standing to sue under the UCL can be established by showing that the plaintiff sustained an economic injury because of the business’ conduct. If the plaintiff bought an item from the business, then this would be enough to meet the UCL standing requirement.

False advertising claims brought under the UCL must establish that the plaintiff sustained economic injury because the defendant company engaged in misleading advertising of goods or services. Basically, this means that the consumer needs to show that they purchased an item or service and that they did so because of a deceptive advertisement.

Strict Liability

Section 17200 of the Unfair Competition Law imposes strict liability on businesses that commit fraud, which means that it does not matter whether they intended to commit fraud. The mere fact that their actions were unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent is enough to violate the statute. Additionally, it is not a defense against a UCL claim that the company’s ad was true or accurate. That’s because the plaintiff in a UCL case merely needs to show that the ad was likely to mislead consumers.

Moreover, it is important for businesses to understand that they can be sued under the UCL even if their actions are not technically unlawful. That’s because the statute explicitly prohibits “unfair” business acts and practices.

Restitution and Damages Available in UCL Claims

There are two remedies available to plaintiffs in an Unfair Competition Law claim:

  1. Actual economic damages, which means the defendant company is ordered to pay back any money received from the consumer.
  2. An injunction ordering the defendant to stop committing the fraud.

There are no punitive damages allowed in UCL cases. This is one reason that individual consumers often join forces to file a UCL claim as a class action, which can make it harder for the defendant to avoid paying a large damages award. A knowledgeable California UCL attorney can help the plaintiffs determine if it would be better to bring a class action lawsuit.

What Is the Statute of Limitations for UCL Claims?

The statute of limitations for a UCL claim is four (4) years, with the clock starting as soon as the business commits the fraudulent act or as soon as the plaintiff discovers the fraud. The standard used in these cases is a reasonable person standard, which means that the court will ask whether a person who exercised reasonable diligence would have discovered the unlawful business act when the statute of limitations period started to run.

Consumer Fraud Defense: Answering UCL Claims

Sometimes, a consumer brings a UCL claim against a company without merit. These claims can be tricky for businesses to answer because the statute is interpreted broadly by courts, and plaintiffs are typically given wide latitude to prove their case. If you have been sued in state court for allegedly violating the Unfair Competition Law, you need to speak with a knowledgeable consumer fraud defense lawyer immediately.

Related Laws: CLRA, ARL, and FTC Act

There are a few other related statutes that California consumers should be aware of when deciding whether to file a UCL claim.

CLRA Claims

Unfair Competition Law claims are often accompanied by claims under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). The CLRA is more limited than the UCL because the CLRA includes protections for specific actions by businesses, whereas the UCL applies broadly to business fraud. It may be in the best interests of a plaintiff to bring a claim under both statutes because the remedies are cumulative. Beyond that, only the CLRA allows for punitive damages to be imposed against the defendant. Additionally, the CLRA allows plaintiffs to recover attorney’s fees.

ARL Claims

It is also possible for California consumers to use the Unfair Competition Law to bring a private civil action against companies that violate California’s automatic renewal laws. This is significant because the California ARL does not allow for a private right of action, which means that consumers who are deceived into signing up for an auto-renewal subscription may still be able to sue for full restitution under the UCL.

Federal Laws

There are also federal laws, such as the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act), that protect California consumers against business fraud and false advertising. One advantage for plaintiffs filing a UCL claim is that the state statute has broad consumer protections that go beyond the protections provided under federal law.

Keep in mind that defendants may argue that more lenient federal law should apply in a particular case instead of the stringent California state law. That’s why it is important to have a skilled Los Angeles false advertising attorney on your side throughout the case.

Contact the California Consumer Protection Attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP

Tauler Smith LLP is a Los Angeles law firm that represents consumers in civil litigation, including class actions based on UCL violations. Our Los Angeles consumer protection lawyers understand the nuances of the California Unfair Competition Law, and we can help you get financial restitution from a company that used fraudulent business practices. Call us today at 310-590-3927 or email us to discuss your case.

Corrupt JAMS Judges

JAMS Private Judges Accused of Corruption

/in /by

Corrupt JAMS Judges

JAMS is a private arbitration firm based out of Irvine, California. John Trotter helped to start the company, and today he remains one of the principals and a profit-earning shareholder. Trotter and other JAMS private judges have been accused of corruption for allegedly helping attorneys commit fraud and steal millions of dollars from clients. The absence of government regulation of the private arbitration industry has made it possible for unethical lawyers to take advantage of their clients and for big companies to abuse the arbitration system.

For more information about the corruption allegations against the JAMS private judges, keep reading this blog.

No Government Regulation of JAMS Private Judges

JAMS typically uses retired judges to serve as arbitrators and mediators in legal disputes, including business conflicts, contract disputes, intellectual property claims, personal injury claims, and civil rights actions. The former judges who administer cases are known as “JAMS Neutrals,” which is ironic because they are often anything but neutral.

A major problem with the JAMS private arbitration system is that the cases are decided behind closed doors and with little or no scrutiny. For instance, private judges are not subject to regulation by any government agency. The State Bar of California highlighted the issue by declaring in a statement that there is “no overarching regulatory framework for private judging or mediation.” California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil Sakauye recently noted that there needs to be greater government oversight of the private judging industry so that litigants are protected.

JAMS Founder John Trotter Accused of Helping Disgraced Lawyer Swindle Clients

John K. Trotter was a retired California Appellate Justice with an unimpeachable record. Trotter began his legal career as a plaintiffs’ attorney in Orange County, and then moved on to the L.A. County Superior Court bench and later to the California Appellate Court bench. He eventually helped to start JAMS. At one point, the National Law Journal called Trotter “the most influential attorney” for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in the entire United States. Now, there are numerous questions being asked about Trotter’s role with JAMS, including whether he helped others use the private arbitration system to defraud participants.

John Trotter & Tom Girardi

John Trotter and JAMS have come under scrutiny in recent years for conflicts of interest in cases involving regular JAMS clients. In one extreme example, JAMS allegedly helped California attorney Tom Girardi steal millions from his clients. During his illustrious legal career, Girardi earned a reputation as a dogged defender of people who had been victimized by large corporations. In litigation involving aerospace company Lockheed Martin, he represented hundreds of workers who had contracted cancer and other illnesses on the job. After securing a massive settlement on behalf of his clients, Girardi enlisted multiple JAMS judges to fairly distribute the funds. The judges were tasked with determining exactly how much money each worker would get based on their specific injuries.

John Trotter served as the “special referee” who oversaw the distribution of settlement money to Girardi’s clients in another major case against a drug company that sold the diabetes medication Rezulin. The plaintiff alleged that the medication caused cancer, liver failure, and other maladies. After helping to secure a $66-million settlement, Girardi used JAMS mediator Trotter to oversee the distribution of funds. Instead of distributing the funds to the victims, however, Girardi diverted the money to his personal accounts. Moreover, while this fraud was happening, Trotter and JAMS did nothing to stop it.

In addition to having the final say on how funds were distributed in Girardi’s lawsuit settlements, Trotter also oversaw a $13-billion trust meant for the victims of Northern California wildfires. Any withdrawals from the settlement fund were supposed to reimburse the attorneys for legal costs related to the case, not for personal expenses. This is where it became apparent that Girardi’s relationship with JAMS judge Trotter was problematic. While Trotter approved millions of dollars in withdrawals for Girardi, he approved just $600,000 in withdrawals by another law firm that worked on the case. Moreover, this wasn’t the only time that a JAMS private judge has been accused of showing favoritism to one party over another.

JAMS Judge Jack Tenner Allegedly Signed False Documents to Defraud Litigants

One of the JAMS judges in the Lockheed Martin case was Jack Tenner, a respected jurist who spent a decade serving on the Los Angeles County Superior Court bench. As an attorney, Tenner had fought against racial discrimination in the city. While serving as a mediator in the Lockheed litigation, Tenner allegedly helped Tom Girardi cheat clients by signing false documents on L.A. County Superior Court letterhead. Those documents directed Comerica Bank to release millions of dollars to Girardi. Later, when Girardi came under fire from clients who questioned what he was doing with their money, Tenner explicitly supported the attorney. In a letter to the plaintiffs, Tenner said that he had personally approved all settlements and legal fees.

JAMS Judge Edward Panelli Accused of Corruption

Another JAMS judge accused of corruption is Edward A. Panelli, a retired California Supreme Court Justice. Panelli socialized with Tom Girardi even as he worked on JAMS cases for the dishonest lawyer. Panelli was chosen by Girardi to oversee the settlement distribution in a high-profile case involving a menopause drug called Prempro that allegedly caused cancer in elderly women. When many of the plaintiffs started asking questions about why they had yet to receive their portion of the $17 million settlement, Girardi said that he withheld the funds because of an order issued by Panelli. Girardi then refused to turn over financial records, as was required under California law.

Girardi’s claim that Panelli was forcing him to withhold funds from the cancer survivors turned out to be a lie. In fact, Panelli had no legal authority over the case because no court had ever appointed him to oversee the settlement. Moreover, Panelli had only spent around 20 hours working on the case. (For which JAMS billed the law firm $78,000, with another $50,000 payment being made directly to Panelli. This amounted to a $5,000 per hour pay rate.) To make matters worse, Panelli – even in his limited capacity – never instructed Girardi to hold back the money. A California magistrate judge later evaluated Panelli’s actions and concluded that the JAMS judge was culpable in the fraud because he had “rubber-stamped” all of the unlawful payouts to Girardi.

In the Prempro case, Girardi even tried to use Panelli to stop a lawsuit filed by the plaintiffs. When the clients sued Girardi, he argued that the case should be transferred from federal court to a private arbitration with Panelli making the final ruling. Not only did Girardi fight back against subpoenas and court orders, but so too did JAMS. After Girardi’s clients filed lawsuits to ensure transparency and so that they could finally get their settlement funds, JAMS spent months pushing back in court.

Other JAMS Judges, Arbitrators, and Mediators Allegedly Helped Tom Girardi Steal Settlement Funds

John Trotter, Jack Tenner, and Edward Panelli were not the only JAMS judges accused of helping Tom Girardi scam his clients. One former judge allegedly signed a fake court order that allowed Girardi to secure $3.5 million from a settlement fund meant for workers of Lockheed Martin who had been poisoned at the company’s Burbank facility. Another former state Supreme Court justice employed by JAMS allegedly assisted Girardi as he stole more than $1 million from cancer survivors.

Contact the California Arbitration Lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP

Tauler Smith LLP is a law firm with experience handling legal disputes that require mediation and arbitration in California, Texas, and New York. Our experienced arbitration lawyers also represent small business owners in class action lawsuits against JAMS. If your case is being administered by JAMS, it is very important that you contact one of our attorneys immediately. Call us or send an email.

Tom Girardi & JAMS Defraud Clients

How Tom Girardi Used JAMS to Defraud Clients

/in /by

Tom Girardi & JAMS Defraud Clients

Tom Girardi has been accused of using JAMS to defraud clients. Girardi was a highly respected California attorney who spent decades representing plaintiffs in class action lawsuits against corporations. JAMS, previously known as Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, is the largest private mediation and arbitration company in the world with more than 400 former judges and legal professionals serving as arbitrators and mediators in California, Texas, New York, and other states. JAMS has come under intense scrutiny from arbitration lawyers and others in the legal community as several of the company’s judges were accused of unethical conduct and corruption.

To learn more about the fraud allegations against Tom Girardi and the JAMS private judges, keep reading this blog.

Tom Girardi Used to Be a Respected California Attorney

Tom Girardi’s abuse of the private judging system lasted decades and affected thousands of clients. Earlier in his legal career, Girardi was one of the lawyers responsible for the case that later inspired the acclaimed movie Erin Brockovich. As an attorney for residents of Hinkley who got cancer from local drinking water, Girardi helped to secure a $333-million settlement.

Girardi’s law firm eventually collapsed as more and more evidence came to light that he had swindled his clients out of millions of dollars. In 2022, Girardi lost his license to practice law in California and his law firm filed for bankruptcy.

Tom Girardi Stole Money from Clients

When a corporation gets sued in a contract dispute, employment claim, consumer action, or some other type of legal dispute, they often rely on JAMS to make sure that the case is handled behind closed doors with an arbitrator or mediator instead of a judge. Additionally, it is not uncommon for retired judges with JAMS to be asked to administer large settlements in mass tort cases. In Girardi’s cases, the JAMS judges failed to notice and/or take action when Girardi stole millions from the parties. This is just one of several instances of JAMS private judges with a huge conflict of interest in the cases they oversee.

A forensic accountant who examined law firm finances determined that Girardi was using his clients’ settlements “like a slush fund.” An audit of Girardi’s financial accounts reportedly showed that he had stolen money from his clients and given it to companies and individuals who had no connection to any of his cases. Even when Girardi claimed that the money was spent on “expert witnesses,” the withdrawals were suspicious. For example, one withdrawal of $450,000 for an expert witness in a case against Lockheed Martin was “confidentially” approved by a JAMS judge.

Erika Jayne

At the time of his deceit involving JAMS, Tom Girardi was married to Erika Jayne, who is best known as one of the stars of the reality show “The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills.” According to one federal judge, Girardi committed multiple crimes when he used his clients’ settlement funds to cover personal expenses for himself and his wife. For example, Bankruptcy Court records indicated that Girardi gave $750,000 to M.M. Jewelers for the purchase of a pair of diamond earrings for his reality TV star wife. He did this shortly after gaining access to the settlement funds, and he reportedly classified the purchase as a case expense. A federal bankruptcy judge, Barry Russell, later said that Girardi’s use of client money to buy expensive jewelry “clearly was a crime” along the lines of theft or embezzlement.

At other times, Girardi took from his clients’ settlement funds to pay himself. Records showed that he would often write several million-dollar checks to his firm in the same week. In one case, Girardi withdrew more than $15 million. Girardi claimed that this money was for his “costs” of representing the plaintiffs, but the amounts and pattern of the withdrawals from the settlement suggested that it was fraud.

JAMS Private Judges Accused of Helping Tom Girardi Cheat Clients

Tom Girardi was able to get away with his deceit because he used private judges affiliated with JAMS. The JAMS private judges have wide latitude and wield substantial power in legal disputes precisely because there is basically zero government oversight of the private arbitration industry. California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye reacted to the revelations about Girardi’s conduct by calling it “shocking.” Cantil-Sakauye commented further on JAMS by observing that there are currently not enough safeguards  to ensure that private judges remain fair and impartial. For instance, the retired judges are not subject to supervision by the Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP), an independent California agency tasked with investigating complaints of judicial misconduct.

Many of the JAMS private judges had impeccable reputations prior to joining the arbitration company, which allowed Tom Girardi to establish credibility even as he misappropriated money from his clients. He later used the perceived reputations of the “JAMS Neutrals” to deflect questions about his misconduct. When Girardi’s clients began to suspect that something was amiss with their settlement funds, Girardi actually referenced the private judges’ impressive credentials to justify his unethical actions. According to a Los Angeles Times investigation of Girardi’s fraud, the JAMS arbitrators “occupy a secretive corner of the legal world.” The private arbitration industry is almost entirely unregulated, which exposes parties to significant risks.

JAMS Profited from Tom Girardi’s Lawsuits

Private arbitration is a lucrative industry, and there can be plenty of financial incentives for the JAMS judges, arbitrators, and mediators to rule a certain way. In the aftermath of the revelations about the massive scale of Tom Girardi’s fraud and theft, many questions have been raised about whether the legal system has enough safeguards to protect litigants against predatory attorneys and unethical arbitrators when the JAMS Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) service is used. That’s because there can be a conflict of interest for JAMS arbitrators and mediators. This was especially true in Girardi’s cases, which involved Girardi paying the JAMS private judges up to $1,500 an hour.

In one of Girardi’s biggest lawsuits, he represented patients who claimed that a large drug company’s diabetes medication, Rezulin, had caused serious health problems, including liver failure. That case resulted in a $66 million settlement on behalf of the plaintiffs, many of whom desperately needed the money to cover their medical expenses. Girardi convinced the victims to allow a JAMS mediator to oversee the settlement and to supposedly ensure that the funds were distributed in the right amounts and to the right individuals. For this service, JAMS received a $500,000 cut of the proceeds.

What Did JAMS Judges Do to Earn Their Fees?

JAMS also received a $500,000 fee for handling the Lockheed Martin settlement that Girardi secured, an enormous figure that was kept secret from clients. When a bankruptcy court requested a full accounting of exactly what John Trotter and the other JAMS judges had done to earn that fee, the arbitration company refused to provide invoices.

Girardi eventually filed for bankruptcy, which has made it even more difficult for those he had deceived and stolen from to get the money they were owed. Incredibly, one of the companies participating in the bankruptcy proceedings is JAMS, which requested a sum of nearly $10,000 for “an unpaid bill.”

Conflicts of Interest When JAMS Oversees Legal Disputes

In addition to the obvious conflict of interest that exists anytime a company pays a JAMS judge to arbitrate a dispute or oversee a settlement, there were other less obvious conflicts with Tom Girardi. For instance, Girardi reportedly arranged for several JAMS judges to go on a Mediterranean cruise after they ruled in his cases. Although Edward Panelli later claimed that his attendance at the event did not affect his “impartiality as a jurist or neutral,” his actions as a JAMS private judge suggested otherwise.

Carousel Lawsuit

In one high-profile case, Girardi represented 1,500 residents of Carousel, a housing development located just outside Los Angeles. The clients were suing an oil company and a real estate developer allegedly responsible for polluted soil that caused widespread cancer and other health issues. After reaching a settlement with the defendants, Girardi specifically requested that JAMS and John Trotter serve as special master to determine how the funds should be divided among the plaintiffs.

After more than two years, many of the clients still had not been paid. When one of the clients requested information about Girardi’s accounting practices, Girardi once again placed the blame on Trotter and JAMS. When that same client sued Girardi, the attorney insisted that the lawsuit be moved from a courtroom into private arbitration. As usual, Girardi wanted the arbitration handled by JAMS. The perception was likely that a JAMS private judge would show favoritism and rule in Girardi’s favor.

Contact the California Arbitration Lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP

Are you one of the parties in an arbitration being administered by JAMS? Is your case being overseen by a JAMS private judge? The California and Texas arbitration lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP can help you. Our legal team represents small business owners and individuals in arbitration, mediation, and other types of alternative dispute resolution. We also handle settlement negotiations. Call or email us to schedule a free consultation.

Federal Trial in St. Louis Missouri

Tauler Smith Wins Federal Bench Trial for Insurance Consumer

/in /by

Federal Trial in St. Louis Missouri

The insurance claim lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP recently won a major trial on behalf of a food & beverage manufacturer in a federal court in St. Louis, Missouri. The litigation began in a California courtroom with a business dispute over the manufacture of protein bars. Later, several of the parties in that case were also involved in insurance litigation heard by a U.S. District Court. Now, the judge has issued a ruling, with Tauler Smith winning a federal bench trial for their insurance consumer client.

The federal court’s decision can be read here. To learn more about Tauler Smith’s victory in the insurance claim lawsuit, keep reading this blog.

California Nutritional Supplement Lawyers Represent Food Manufacturer in Defective Protein Bar Lawsuit

One of the defendants in the nutritional supplement lawsuit was Eagle Mist Corporation, which does business as Osagai International and which is run by Kevin Laughlin. Eagle Mist is a company that invents and formulates functional foods, such as protein shakes and nutrition bars. They also provide other manufacturers with the technological ingredients they need for foods, beverages, and personal care products.

Nutritional Supplement Agreement

Eagle Mist entered into an agreement to supply ingredients to Sapphire Bakery, which would use the ingredients to reformulate and manufacture 13 types of nutritional protein bars. Sapphire then supplied the nutrition bars to Defense Nutrition, which finally supplied the bars to Julian Bakery.

Nutritional Supplement Dispute

Julian Bakery, the company that ultimately received delivery of the protein bars, alleged that the bars were defective due to the other companies modifying the formula of the bars, in addition to using certain processing agents during manufacturing. Julian Bakery sued Eagle Mist and Sapphire for breach of contract, damages related to defective goods, negligence, breach of warranty, unfair business practices, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and promissory estoppel.

The lawsuit was filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, and the complex multi-party litigation included cross-complaints between seven (7) parties that all had a connection to the business dispute. Los Angeles nutritional supplement attorney Robert Tauler represented Eagle Mist in the California litigation, and successfully defeated three successive motions for summary adjudication in the case.

Insurance Coverage Dispute in California Food Supplement Case

Before starting production on the nutrition bars that were to eventually be delivered to Julian Bakery, Eagle Mist needed to get insurance coverage. At the time, Sapphire Bakery had a commercial general liability policy of insurance issued by Ohio Security Insurance Company. That policy called for Ohio Security to cover any legal expenses that Sapphire might one day become obligated to pay as damages in a lawsuit if sued. Since Sapphire’s insurance policy with Ohio Security allowed for the “named insured” to extend coverage to another company as an “additional insured,” Sapphire asked Ohio Security’s insurance broker to include Eagle Mist in its policy. The insurance broker then provided a certificate of liability insurance to Eagle Mist.

The insurance coverage became extremely important later when there was a business dispute over the manufacture of the nutrition bars. Sapphire Bakery’s insurance policy with Ohio Security meant that the insurance company would pay for Sapphire’s legal defense in the nutritional supplement litigation. The insurance company also agreed to pay for Eagle Mist’s legal defense in the civil suit because Eagle Mist was on the policy as an additional insured.

Texas Consumer Protection Attorney Camrie Ventry Wins Insurance Claim Litigation in U.S. District Court

The plaintiffs in the insurance claim litigation were Ohio Security Insurance Company and Ohio Casualty Insurance Company. The parent company of Ohio Security and Casualty is Liberty Mutual Insurance. Ohio Security and Liberty Mutual paid for Eagle Mist’s legal defense in the California nutritional supplement case. Later, the insurance companies argued at trial that Eagle Mist should be ordered to pay back their legal defense costs because they were never supposed to be covered under the insurance policy.

Dallas consumer protection attorney Camrie Ventry of Tauler Smith LLP represented Eagle Mist in the insurance coverage lawsuit. The case was heard by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, with the court holding a one-day bench trial and issuing a memorandum opinion on December 16, 2022. The court was tasked with determining whether Ohio Security Insurance Company did, in fact, have a legal obligation to defend Eagle Mist under the terms of its insurance policy, as well as whether Ohio Security was entitled to reimbursement of the legal defense costs that they provided to Eagle Mist.

Federal Court Rules That Insurance Company Unreasonably Delayed Its Coverage Decision

Ohio Security’s argument at trial was that because Eagle Mist was never covered under the insurance policy, the insurance provider was entitled to recover all expenses it paid for Eagle Mist’s legal defense. The U.S. District Court rejected this argument and found that, under the circumstances, it was justified for Eagle Mist to retain the benefits of the legal expenses paid by the insurance company. Accordingly, the court entered judgment in favor of the Tauler Smith LLP client.

The court cited four main reasons for its ruling in favor of Eagle Mist and against the insurance company:

  1. Ohio Security voluntarily assumed the defense of Eagle Mist in the nutritional supplement lawsuit.
  2. Ohio Security had ongoing knowledge that Eagle Mist was not actually covered under the insurance policy.
  3. Ohio Security continuously paid the defense costs of Eagle Mist in the nutritional supplement lawsuit.
  4. Ohio Security unreasonably delayed for three (3) years before finally notifying Eagle Mist that they were not covered under the policy.

#1 – Insurance Company Agreed to Extend Policy Benefits

One of the benefits of Ohio Security’s insurance policy with Sapphire Bakery (and with Eagle Mist) was that Ohio Security agreed to pay all legal defense costs if there was a lawsuit brought by a third party.

As soon as the defective protein bars lawsuit was filed, Kevin Laughlin and Eagle Mist contacted Ohio Security Insurance Company to confirm that Eagle Mist was covered under the insurance policy. The U.S. District Court said that Eagle Mist had a good faith basis to believe that they were covered under the insurance policy. Kevin Laughlin communicated both verbally and in writing with Ohio Security to confirm that Eagle Mist was an additional insured under the policy, and he did the same with Sapphire Bakery. Moreover, the court found, Laughlin reasonably believed that the Certificate of Insurance issued by the insurance broker explicitly conferred coverage.

#2 – Insurance Company Knew the Policy Was Invalid

Shortly after the supplement civil suit was filed, the insurance company conducted its own investigation to verify whether Eagle Mist qualified as an additional insured under the insurance policy. During this investigation, Eagle Mist provided Ohio Security with email communications, purchase orders, and contracts.

According to the U.S. District Court, Ohio Security knew for several years that Eagle Mist was not actually covered under the insurance policy. But rather than acting quickly to provide notice, the insurance company delayed for three (3) years before finally informing Eagle Mist at a time when it would be most inconvenient for the food & beverage ingredient supplier.

#3 – Insurance Company Continued to Pay Legal Bills

After the investigation, Ohio Security still agreed to cover Eagle Mist’s legal fees for the nutritional supplement lawsuit. For the next three (3) years, the insurance company paid all of Eagle Mist’s legal bills in the case. During this time, Ohio Security made no statements to indicate that Eagle Mist was not covered under the insurance policy, nor did they provide notice to Eagle Mist that the food and beverage company was not covered under the insurance policy. It was only when the lawsuit was set to start trial that Ohio Security suddenly revealed that Eagle Mist never should have been covered under the policy. Ohio Security withdrew their defense, stopped paying Eagle Mist’s legal bills, and demanded that Eagle Mist repay nearly $1 million in defense costs already paid.

#4 – Insurance Company Delayed Its Coverage Decision

Although Ohio Security assumed the defense of Eagle Mist in the case and agreed to cover all legal costs, the insurance company argued that they had explicitly reserved the right to opt out of the arrangement. The court found this argument unpersuasive because the insurance company “essentially buried their head in the sand,” only to later “ask the Court to claw back funds they voluntarily paid over a span of years without producing any evidence that Defendants acted unjustly or that a three-year delay in asserting their coverage position was justified or reasonable.”

The insurance company knew at the start of the California nutritional supplement litigation that Eagle Mist was not supposed to be covered under the policy, but nevertheless continued to pay all legal costs while telling Eagle Mist that there were no issues. Then, after delaying for several years, the insurance company suddenly informed Eagle Mist that they were not covered under the policy. This sudden change in coverage came just one month before trial in the supplement lawsuit, when Eagle Mist would be most vulnerable.

The insurance company tried to justify its decision to withdraw coverage by pointing to a single, vague sentence about “reservation of rights” buried in a 25-page boilerplate letter. The court rejected this argument by noting that “a single mention in a twenty-five-plus-page boilerplate reservation of rights letter, without any further action by Plaintiffs for three years, was insufficient to put Defendants on notice they might not be covered under the Policy.”

Tauler Smith Insurance Litigation Team Represents Businesses & Consumers in California, Texas, and Throughout the U.S.

The Tauler Smith consumer protection & insurance litigation team is proud of its strong track record in insurance claim cases in state courts across California and Texas, as well as in federal courtrooms. Insurance companies must be held accountable when they attempt to take advantage of customers, which is why Camrie Ventry and our Texas litigators always fight so hard for clients in these cases.

After successfully defending Eagle Mist against Ohio Security and Liberty Mutual, Ms. Ventry called it “a great victory” for businesses and individuals who are unfairly forced to pursue the insurance benefits to which they are entitled. Ms. Ventry added, “This ruling shows that insurance companies cannot overreach by demanding to recover an exorbitant amount of money from the very people they are charged with protecting. The court got it right.”

Contact the California and Texas Insurance Claim Lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP

The attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP represent businesses and individuals in a range of practice areas, including dietary supplement lawsuits, consumer protection litigation, and insurance litigation. Call us today or send an email to schedule a free initial consultation about your case.

Texas Telephone Solicitation Act

Texas Telephone Solicitation Act

/in /by

Texas Telephone Solicitation Act

Telemarketing is an important tool used by many businesses to generate revenues, but it can also expose consumers to misinformation and fraud. That’s why Texas lawmakers passed important consumer protection laws that explicitly prohibit false, misleading, or deceptive practices. One such law is the Texas Telephone Solicitation Act, which regulates attempts by companies to sell or rent property, products, or services to consumers via telephone solicitation. The law is part of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, which protects consumers against a wide range of fraudulent business practices. The section of the statute governing telephone solicitations is meant to protect purchasers against false, misleading, or deceptive practices on sales calls. When a company makes a sales call, they must abide by the guidelines set forth in the statute. This includes filing a registration statement that contains relevant sales information, as well as making required disclosures to purchasers during telephone solicitations about both the company and the items for sale.

To learn more about the Texas Telephone Solicitation Act and the protections it affords consumers, keep reading this blog.

What Is the Texas Telephone Solicitation Act?

The Telephone Solicitation Act is codified in Texas Bus. & Com. Code, Title 10, Subtitle A, Chapter 302. The statute defines a “telephone solicitation” as a telephone call that is initiated to induce someone to buy, rent, claim, or receive an item. Importantly, the Texas law also covers phone calls made by consumers in response to a solicitation that was sent electronically (e.g., an email) or physically (e.g., a letter in the mail). Moreover, the law applies to calls placed manually, calls initiated by an automatic dialing machine, and calls that involve a recorded messaging device.

Telephone Solicitation Registration Requirements in Texas

The requirements of the Texas Telephone Solicitation Act are strictly enforced, with any violation by a telemarketer possibly triggering both civil and criminal penalties. The statute imposes requirements on companies both during the registration process and when the phone solicitation is made.

Seller Disclosures at Registration

Before making a telephone solicitation, sellers must first fill out a Telephone Solicitation Registration Statement and obtain a registration certificate for their business. Moreover, the registration statement must list each telephone number that will be used by the seller, as well as the specific locations from which any phone solicitations will be made. Other sales information that must be disclosed in the statement includes a copy of all telephone solicitation scripts and other material provided to salespersons, a copy of any written material that might be sent to consumers, and the contact information for outside product suppliers.

The registration statement is filed with the Texas Secretary of State, and it must identify each principal of the seller: owners, executive officers, general partners, trustees, etc. The registration certificate is valid for one year, and it must be renewed annually. Additionally, for every three-month period after the certificate was issued, the business must provide information for each salesperson who solicited on behalf of the business.

One of the most important requirements imposed by the Telephone Solicitation Act is the security requirement: sellers must submit a security deposit in the amount of $10,000. The deposit is meant to ensure that the seller complies with the law. When a seller is found to have violated the statute, the deposit may be used as payment for any penalties imposed by the court.

Seller Disclosures on the Call

In addition to requiring disclosures in the registration statement filed with the state, the Texas Telephone Solicitation Act also compels companies to make certain disclosures to consumers before a purchase is made through a phone solicitation. For example, prior to the finalization of any transaction on a sales call, the seller must provide the consumer with the street address of the building or office from which the call is being made. Additionally, if the seller tells the consumer that the item is being offered at a reduced price, the seller must provide the name of the manufacturer. Along those same lines, if the seller represents that one of the items is a gift or prize, then they also need to clearly state the contest rules.

The Telephone Solicitation Act also places a significant limitation on exactly what telemarketers are allowed to say during a sales call: the caller is not allowed to state or otherwise reference their supposed compliance with the statute. The idea behind this restriction is that sellers should not be able to discourage consumers from investigating on their own to determine whether a seller violated the law by making a deceptive sales call.

How to File a Civil Lawsuit Against a Telemarketer in Texas

Consumers who are defrauded, scammed, or otherwise injured by a telemarketer’s violation of the Telephone Solicitation Act can take legal action. Experienced Texas consumer fraud lawyers know just how strong the statute’s protections are, and they also know how to navigate the legal system to hold businesses accountable for violating the law.

One option available to consumers is to file a civil suit against the company or person who made the sales call. Any individual who suffered economic losses due to a seller breaching an agreement that was entered into during a telephone solicitation may be eligible to recover financial compensation against the seller’s security deposit with the state. It might also be possible for consumers to bring a claim under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) because a violation of the Telephone Solicitation Act qualifies as a violation of the DTPA. Additionally, a person bringing a civil action under either statute may be entitled to compensation for reasonable attorney’s fees and related legal expenses.

Burden of Proof

The protections set forth in the Texas Telephone Solicitation Act are far-reaching and tend to be interpreted broadly by judges. In fact, the statute even stipulates that the burden of proof in these cases will be on the defendant accused of violating the law. For example, in civil proceedings where the defendant argues that they are exempt from the law, the burden of proving the exemption will fall on the defendant. Similarly, a company or individual who faces criminal charges for violating the telephone solicitation law is required to produce evidence supporting their defense that they are exempt from the statute.

Which Sellers Are Exempt from the Texas Telephone Solicitation Act?

Some sellers accused of violating the Telephone Solicitation Act may be able to argue that the consumer protection law does not apply to them, but only in certain situations. Those who may be exempt from the statute include agents of publicly traded companies, sellers for banks or other supervised financial institutions, anyone associated with companies regulated by the Public Utility Commission of Texas, individuals who are already subject to regulation by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and educational institutions or nonprofit organizations that are exempt from taxation by the IRS. In many instances, exemption from the Telephone Solicitation Act is possible because another law or regulation applies instead and takes precedence.

The Texas Business and Commerce Code also includes explicit exemptions from the phone solicitation law for the following categories of sellers:

  • Anyone selling a subscription to a newspaper, magazine, or cable television service.
  • Anyone selling items to a consumer who has consented in advance to receiving periodic deliveries of those items.
  • Individuals or companies delivering catalogs that are distributed in at least one other state and that have a circulation of at least 250,000 customers.
  • Anyone selling items to a business that plans to resell the items.
  • Persons or companies attempting to sell food products.
  • Persons calling about maintenance or repair of an item that was previously purchased from them.
  • Businesses soliciting a former or current customer.

Criminal and Civil Penalties Imposed by the Texas Telephone Solicitation Act

Every individual violation of a provision in the Texas Telephone Solicitation Act is considered a separate offense, which means that the penalties can add up very quickly even when the offenses stem from a single sales call. Beyond that, there can be both civil and criminal penalties imposed against sellers who violate the statute.

Criminal Penalties

Violations that may be charged as criminal offenses include failing to obtain the necessary registration certificate before making a phone solicitation, failing to make necessary disclosures to the consumer before finalizing a sale, and mentioning compliance with the statute on the sales call. Each of these offenses can be charged as a class A misdemeanor, which carries a possible fine of $4,000 and a sentence of up to one year in jail. Moreover, these criminal penalties can be imposed against both the business owner and the salesperson or telemarketer who made the call. Additionally, the defendant in a criminal action may be ordered to pay the costs of prosecuting the case, including the attorney general’s expenses for the investigation, depositions, witnesses, and related attorney’s fees.

Civil Penalties

Sellers who violate a provision in the Texas Telephone Solicitation Act are also subject to civil penalties. These penalties can be substantial, with the statute calling for a fine of up to $5,000 for each violation. The penalties become even harsher when the seller violates an injunction brought by the secretary of state for a previous offense: a $25,000 fine for each subsequent violation, plus an additional $50,000 fine for all violations after the injunction was issued.

Contact the Texas Consumer Protection Lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP

Did you receive a telemarketing call from a person who failed to identify themselves, their business, or their reason for calling? Did the telemarketer’s attempts to sell you something feel like part of a scam? The Texas Telephone Solicitation Act gives consumers the ability to take legal action by notifying the secretary of state and possibly filing a civil suit, and the Texas consumer protection attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP can help you.

Call 972-920-6040 or email us today to discuss your case.

NY Automatic Renewal Law

New York’s Automatic Renewal Law

/in /by

NY Automatic Renewal Law

New York’s Automatic Renewal Law (ARL) protects consumers by prohibiting businesses from engaging in certain practices when making an automatic renewal offer in the state. The New York ARL tracks California’s strict statutory requirements, which means that businesses must follow guidelines about disclosing renewal offer terms to consumers, giving customers the opportunity to affirmatively consent before they sign up for an auto-renewal program, and allowing customers to easily cancel their subscription afterwards. NY consumers who have enrolled in a subscription program without their consent should immediately reach out to a qualified New York false advertising attorney who understands both state and federal laws on auto-renewal offers.

To learn more about the New York automatic renewal law, keep reading this blog.

NY Automatic Renewal Bill: SB 1475

New York’s Automatic Renewal Law (ARL) is set forth in New York State Senate Bill S1475A. The law went into effect in February 2021 after being passed by the New York State Legislature and signed by NY Governor Andrew Cuomo. SB 1475 greatly expanded the scope of the state’s previous automatic renewal law, New York General Obligations Law § 5-903. The new ARL added substantial requirements for businesses that offer either automatic renewal plans or continuous service plans to consumers, including a stricter requirement that businesses notify consumers of the subscription terms after enrollment. Additionally, SB 1475 expanded the old law’s scope beyond service, maintenance, and repair contracts to also include consumer contracts involving “any goods, services, money, or credit for personal, family, or household purposes.”

New York businesses that offer auto-renewal subscription services to consumers must comply with SB 1475, relevant federal laws, and any other state ARLs which may be applicable if the purchase was made online by an out-of-state customer. Additionally, these businesses must also comply with New York’s older ARL, which remains in effect even after the passage of the new law.

New York ARL Requirements for Businesses

The New York ARL imposes the following requirements on businesses that offer consumer contracts for automatically renewing subscription services:

  • Auto-renewal terms must be conspicuous. The auto-renewal terms should be in visual proximity to the section where the consumer provides affirmative consent, and the terms should also stand out visually from the rest of the offer. (E.g., different text sizes, different fonts, and different colors.)
  • Auto-renewal terms must be clear. The terms and conditions of the subscription service must be easy for the consumer to understand. The exact language used by the NY ARL is that the offer terms should be presented “in a manner capable of being retained by the consumer.” (E.g., the offer should clearly state that the subscription will continue until the purchaser cancels.)
  • Must obtain affirmative consent from purchaser. The customer needs to affirmatively consent to the automatic renewal terms before it becomes a legally binding contract. Otherwise, NY law stipulates that any goods received by the consumer are an “unconditional gift” and do not need to be paid for.
  • Must send enrollment acknowledgement to consumer. After the customer has enrolled in the subscription program, the business needs to send a letter, email, or other type of written acknowledgement that states the program’s terms and cancelation policy.
  • Cancelation policy must match method used to subscribe. When a customer uses a company’s website to enroll in a subscription program, the company must allow the customer to cancel online.
  • Free trial offers must have cancelation options. If the company offers a “free” trial period before the subscription automatically renews for a monthly fee, the company needs to provide the consumer with the ability to opt out of the paid subscription service. Additionally, the cancelation policy must be presented clearly and conspicuously in the original agreement.
  • Must disclose any material changes to the agreement. It is common for businesses to modify their agreements later. But if a business wants to change the terms of an auto-renewal plan, they must have already alerted the consumer to this possibility in the original offer. Moreover, when making material changes to its subscription plan, the business must disclose those changes to the consumer and give the consumer an easy way to cancel their subscription.

Defenses Available to Businesses Accused of Violating the NY ARL

Although New York’s ARL provides strong protections to consumers who enroll in auto-renewal plans, there are some exceptions to the law that allow businesses to raise possible defenses against an alleged violation. For instance, the new ARL only applies to contracts for subscriptions involving consumers; business-to-business contract are addressed by the state’s old ARL.

SB 1475 also has a “safe harbor” provision that gives companies a possible defense when the violation was unintentional. If the company can show that they made a bona fide error despite taking reasonable measures to comply with the law, the New York Attorney General may choose not to bring charges.

What Remedies Are Available to Consumers in NY ARL Cases?

Compliance with the New York ARL is enforced by the NY Attorney General. The statute gives the state Attorney General authority to fine businesses as much as $100 for each violation of the auto-renewal law. When the violation was knowing and intentional, the fine can be increased to $500 for each violation. For companies with popular services and large subscription bases, these fines can add up quickly and serve as an effective deterrent against further abuse.

The individual consumers who enrolled in the unlawful subscription services also stand to benefit financially under New York’s auto-renewal law. That’s because the statute specifies that consumers who receive a service or product without providing affirmative consent for enrollment in the subscription program will not have to pay for the goods or services received. Additionally, they may be eligible to join a consumer class action lawsuit brought under one of the state’s consumer protection laws.

Contact the New York False Advertising Lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP

Tauler Smith LLP is a law firm that represents clients in consumer fraud litigation throughout the United States, including New York. Our experienced NY false advertising lawyers have filed complaints on behalf of clients in both federal and state court, and we know how to win these cases. Call or email us to speak with a member of our litigation team.