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.

Nationwide Mutual Insurance CIPA Lawsuit

CIPA Lawsuit Against Nationwide Mutual Insurance

/in /by

Nationwide Mutual Insurance CIPA Lawsuit

A CIPA lawsuit was recently filed against Nationwide Mutual Insurance for illegal wiretapping and invasion of privacy, and now a federal judge in California has ruled that the case can proceed to trial. The U.S. District Court judge issued the ruling in response to a motion to dismiss the wiretapping claims under Section 631 of CIPA, or the California Invasion of Privacy Act. The civil suit alleges that Nationwide Mutual unlawfully allows a third party to eavesdrop on customer conversations on the insurance company’s website. Chat communications are allegedly monitored in real time, and the sensitive personal data from those conversations is allegedly stored and used for financial gain. These actions would constitute clear violations of California consumer privacy laws.

These days, it is common for many different types of businesses to violate the CIPA and other invasion of privacy laws. If you live in California and used the chat feature on a company’s website, you may be eligible to join a class action lawsuit for invasion of privacy. The Los Angeles consumer protection lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP can help you get financial compensation.

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Sued for Invasion of Privacy

The defendant in the recent invasion of privacy case is Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., which is a corporation that offers insurance, retirement, investing, and other financial services and products to consumers in the United States, including residents of California. Nationwide operates a website: www.nationwide.com. The website has a chat feature, which customers can use to have online conversations with Nationwide. Sometimes, the customers who use the chat feature may share sensitive personal data with the company.

Third-Party Wiretapping of Customer Conversations

Nationwide Mutual Insurance has been accused of using a third-party company, Akamai or Kustomer, to embed code into the Nationwide website, which allows the third-party company to monitor and store transcripts of the conversations that occur through the chat feature. Akamai specializes in harvesting data from consumer conversations, which is believed to be the reason that Nationwide contracted with them in the first place.

Significantly, Nationwide does not inform customers who use the chat feature on the website that monitoring of conversations, storing of transcripts, or data harvesting occurs. Beyond that, Nationwide does not obtain customers’ consent for any of these activities.

Federal Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Wiretapping Lawsuit Against Nationwide Mutual Insurance

The plaintiff in the consumer data privacy case is a California resident who used a smartphone to visit the Nationwide Mutual Insurance website and to communicate with Nationwide via the company’s website chat program. She filed her original legal complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court, and the case was later removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Once the case arrived in federal court, Nationwide filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The U.S. District Court recently held a hearing on the motion to dismiss. Although the Section 632.7 CIPA complaint was dismissed, the court ruled that the Section 631 CIPA complaint could move forward to trial. The court found that the plaintiff had stated a valid claim under § 631 of the CIPA because she plausibly alleged that Nationwide aided third-party Akamai in violating the consumer privacy statute.

What Are California’s Data Privacy Laws?

On top of having extremely strong consumer protection laws, California also has some of the strongest digital privacy laws in the country. The three most prominent statutes are the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), and the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA). All of these data protection laws impose civil liability on companies that invade the privacy of customers. The CIPA imposes a requirement on businesses to obtain permission from customers before recording telephone and internet communications, including online chat conversations. The CCPA specifically prohibits businesses from sharing the personal information of customers with third parties, while the CPRA amended the law to increase the penalties for violating consumer privacy.

What Conduct Is Prohibited by the California Invasion of Privacy Act?

Although Section 631 of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) is technically a criminal statute with criminal penalties, the Penal Code authorizes civil liability for violations of the law. This means that consumers whose confidentiality was invaded by a company doing business in California can potentially bring a civil lawsuit for monetary damages.

California courts ruling on CIPA claims have interpreted Section 631 to prohibit three types of conduct:

  1. Intentional wiretapping.
  2. Attempting to learn the contents of a communication in transit over a wire.
  3. Attempting to use information obtained as a result of wiretapping or monitoring of communications.

Additional requirements or elements of a CIPA violation include that the intentional wiretapping was done while the communication was in transit and that the communication was being sent from or received at a location within California. The prohibited conduct includes reading the contents of any message, report, or communication without the consent of all parties to that message, report, or communication. If one of the parties did not know that the chat or other type of communication was being monitored and/or wiretapped, then it would not be possible for them to provide consent or authorization. The bottom line is that eavesdropping on a conversation is a clear violation of Section 631 of the CIPA.

“Aiding” a Violation of the CIPA

Section 631 of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) also imposes liability on any company that “aids” or assists another in violating the statute. The plaintiff in this case alleges that Nationwide Mutual Insurance “aided, abetted, and even paid third parties to eavesdrop” on her conversations. Moreover, she alleges that these privacy breaches happened not only with her communications, but also with other consumers’ communications on the Nationwide website.

Party Exception to § 631

There is a “party exception” to Section 631 of the CIPA. Courts have found that a party to a conversation cannot be liable for “eavesdropping” on that conversation. But this gets complicated when the conversation involves a third party. For example, if computer code on a website automatically directs a communication to a third party, the party exception won’t shield the third party from civil liability under the CIPA.

U.S. District Court: Nationwide Mutual Insurance May Have Violated California Invasion of Privacy Law

The plaintiff in the Nationwide Mutual Insurance data privacy case alleged that Nationwide violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) pursuant to California Penal Code § 631. Now, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has found that the plaintiff plausibly alleged that Akamai read the contents of her messages, which would constitute a violation of Section 631 by Nationwide for “aiding” in the wiretapping offense. Moreover, the court agreed that it is conceivable that Nationwide hired Akamai specifically to intercept messages and use them for Nationwide’s financial benefit. This would constitute “aiding” the illegal wiretapping by Akamai, which would lead to Nationwide itself being liable for violating the CIPA.

One theory put forward in the case is that Nationwide paid Akamai to “embed code” into the website that “enables Akamai to secretly intercept in real time, eavesdrop upon, and store transcripts” of messages sent via the website chat feature. In fact, it has been alleged that Akamai’s business model is to harvest data from transcripts of communications. Significantly, the federal court said that one inference from the plaintiff’s legal claim is that the personal information being harvested goes beyond mere “record information” like the consumer’s name, address, and subscriber number.

Akamai has been accused of intercepting customers’ messages as they are sent and received on the Nationwide website. The court found that these allegations are “plausible” based on Akamai’s public statements about their conduct. Additionally, the court said that the plaintiff clearly alleged that neither Akamai nor Nationwide Mutual Insurance had her consent to harvest personal data from communications on the Nationwide website.

Contact the California Consumer Protection Lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP

Anyone who used the chat feature on a company’s website may have been the victim of illegal wiretapping and privacy violations. If you are a California resident who visited a website, the Tauler Smith LLP legal team can help you. Contact our Los Angeles consumer fraud and false advertising attorneys today. You can call 310-590-3927 or email us.

NBC Bay Area News & California ARL

NBC Bay Area News Report on California Automatic Renewal Law

/in /by

NBC Bay Area News & California ARL

Companies that do business in California are legally required to disclose an automatic renewal policy to customers before auto-renewing their subscription. A recent NBC Bay Area News report on the California Automatic Renewal Law (ARL) details how Chegg, an education technology company, has been accused of deceptively renewing subscriptions to a textbook rental service and then making it difficult for customers to cancel the subscriptions. The plaintiff in the lawsuit is seeking $2,500 in damages, which is what the ARL allows the court to impose against companies that violate the statute.

The Los Angeles consumer fraud attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP are seeking additional plaintiffs to join a class action lawsuit for ARL violations by Chegg and other companies.

KNTV San Francisco Bay Area News: ARL Claim Against Textbook Company Chegg

Battling auto renewal? Can’t cancel? Can’t get a refund? You have rights!

[…]

In Washington, the Federal Trade Commission is currently looking to toughen federal rules that govern auto renewals – and give consumers more power. When the FTC asked for public comment this spring, it got more than a thousand of them. Some businesses and business groups bristled. For example, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce commented that the FTC was imposing “substantial and burdensome regulations on the business community.”

The federal auto-renew fight is just beginning. But it’s settled in California. A little-known law called the California “Auto Renewal Law” is already on the books. “The fundamental aspect of the law, the way it’s phrased and how it’s designed, is to make it as easy to get out of as it was to get into it,” said Doug Allen, Assistant District Attorney in the Santa Cruz County District Attorney’s Office.

[…]

“This isn’t the biggest case out there, but I think it’s an important case nonetheless,” said attorney Robert Tauler. He filed a federal suit in San Jose. Tauler argues Chegg did “not use bold, highlighted, all-capitalized, or different-colored text for the automatic renewal terms” when Sheri signed up. He’s asking the court to order Chegg to refund Sheri – plus any other auto-renewed customers like her. Tauler wants a class action – to set some precedent. “I’d like businesses to be on the lookout that they should comply – whether they are large or they are small,” he said.

You can see the entire report on the NBC Bay Area News website.

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.

Arlo Home Security Invasion of Privacy

Arlo Home Security System Sued for Invasion of Privacy

/in /by

Arlo Home Security Invasion of Privacy

Arlo Home Security System is being sued for invasion of privacy. The consumer protection attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP recently filed the lawsuit on behalf of a California resident who used the company’s website: www.arlo.com/. Specifically, Arlo is accused of engaging in the unauthorized collection, storage, and sharing of the personal information of its customers. Arlo has also been accused of allowing a third-party company to secretly intercept and monitor the online chat conversations of website visitors without their knowledge or consent. Arlo’s actions are alleged as clear violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), which explicitly prohibits companies from engaging in behavior that violates certain privacy rights of customers.

We believe Arlo could be potentially violating other privacy rights of consumers based on our preliminary investigation. Keep reading this blog for more information.

Arlo Technologies Fails to Protect the Privacy Rights of Customers

Arlo is a home security company that sells doorbells and security cameras with wireless connections. Arlo Technologies, Inc. is the parent company that manufactures the wireless surveillance cameras and smart home security systems being marketed to consumers for both residential and small business use. Customers are able to use the Arlo.com website to purchase products, monitor their home security systems, and communicate with the company.

Arlo primarily manufactures and sells home security cameras, which means that it is absolutely imperative that the company complies with all applicable federal and California state laws and regulations concerning data privacy. Moreover, the nature of Arlo’s business of selling security cameras and recording devices means that the personal information being collected from customers is likely to be extremely sensitive. When Arlo fails to protect the privacy rights of customers, it exposes them to significant risks not just because the information shared typically goes beyond basic record information to include personally identifiable details, but also because users are able to transmit video files over the internet that make them vulnerable to serious abuses of their privacy.

Privacy Lawsuit Filed Against Arlo Home Security System in Los Angeles County Superior Court

The plaintiff in the current lawsuit against Arlo alleges that Arlo unlawfully collected data using a third-party service on its website. The lead attorney for the plaintiff is Betsy Tauler, a consumer protection attorney who focuses on privacy law. Tauler filed the lawsuit in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

Arlo’s Chatbox:

A major issue has been raised about the digital privacy of consumers who use Arlo’s website and share their private information. When the plaintiff in this case browsed the site, the complaint alleges, she interacted with a chatbox function that used a third party to collect information about her without her consent. Additionally, the home security system company allegedly utilizes the third-party chatbox on the website to unlawfully transmit and store user data. Arlo does this by covertly embedding code into its online chat function that sends the chat to a third party who collects data from the chat without the user’s knowledge. This type of commercial surveillance is illegal in California and violates the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA).

Arlo’s Privacy Policy:

Arlo has been accused of collecting data from many website visitors without providing any disclosures about how their private information is being used. Although the Arlo website has a privacy policy, the policy is easy to miss because it is not prominently displayed on the home page. In fact, the policy is buried deep within the website, making it difficult for users to read and understand its terms before they provide personal information when prompted to do so by the website chat bot. The complaint filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court alleges that Arlo’s failure to make sure that website visitors are aware of the terms of the privacy policy constitutes a deliberate attempt to mislead them.

Arlo Sued for Violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA)

The California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) prohibits companies from wiretapping and eavesdropping on the electronic communications of customers. The statute also specifically requires website operators to conspicuously warn visitors if their conversations are being recorded or if any third parties are eavesdropping on them.

The CIPA applies to conversations transmitted via a “cellular radio telephone” or a “landline telephone.” These categories have been found to include smartphones that enable web browsing, as well as desktop computers and laptop computers that utilize wi-fi. The plaintiff in this case accessed Arlo’s website using a smartphone.

Arlo Home Security System faces a civil suit for violating two sections of the California Invasion of Privacy Act:

  • Section 631
  • Section 632.7

§631 of the CIPA:

Section 631(a) of California’s Penal Code prohibits companies from using any machine, instrument, or contrivance to wiretap a conversation. The statute also forbids companies from reading the contents of any message or communication without the consent of all parties to the communication.

Section 631 applies not just to telephone conversations, but also to internet communications. This means that Arlo’s wiretapping of website chat communications would constitute a clear violation of the CIPA.

Additionally, Arlo allegedly embedded software on its website for the purpose of recording and eavesdropping on customer communications, which is also prohibited because this type of session recording software qualifies as a “machine, instrument, or contrivance” as defined by the statute.

§632.7 of the CIPA:

Arlo has also been accused of violating Section 632.7 of California’s Penal Code by intercepting and intentionally recording customer communications transmitted via telephone. The plaintiff in this case accessed Arlo’s website and used the chat feature with a smartphone, which qualifies as a sophisticated “cellular radio telephone” as defined by the law. Since the statute prohibits companies from recording telephony communications without the consent of all parties, Arlo’s actions would constitute a violation of Section 632.7.

According to the complaint, Arlo’s actions demonstrate that the company is more interested in profiting from its users’ personal information than it is in protecting users’ privacy rights.

Arlo Allegedly Surveils Customers

Arlo allegedly also allows ADA, a third-party company, to eavesdrop on customer conversations. ADA allegedly collects transcripts of these conversations and uses them for financial gain in unregulated dark data markets without any limitations. Additionally, ADA may be exposing Arlo customer data in international data transfers, which could involve foreign countries with different data protection laws.

Arlo allegedly pays substantial sums of money to ADA to embed code into the website chat feature. This is how ADA is able to allegedly intercept the chat communications in real time. The third-party company then eavesdrops on those conversations and stores transcripts. Website visitors have no way of knowing that this is being done. In fact, the complaint alleges that no one who uses the chatbox feature on the Arlo.com website is informed that they are being subjected to unlawful surveillance.

Do You Use Arlo for Home Security? Call the California Consumer Protection Attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP

Anyone within California who uses Arlo and believes they have been unlawfully collecting data may be eligible to file an invasion of privacy lawsuit to recover injunctive relief and statutory damages under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) or other consumer protection laws.

The California consumer fraud lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP are representing plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against Arlo Home Security System. For more information, call 310-590-3927 or send us an email.

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.

Goodyear Tires Wiretapping Lawsuit

Goodyear Tires Wiretapping Lawsuit to Proceed

/in /by

Goodyear Tires Wiretapping Lawsuit

In a highly anticipated ruling, a federal judge in California recently denied Goodyear’s motion to dismiss wiretapping claims based on their use of third-party chat applications hosted on their website. This ruling allows the Goodyear Tires wiretapping lawsuit to proceed. The complaint alleges that when users visit www.goodyear.com/ and use the website chat feature, they share personal data in communications that are unlawfully recorded and transcribed. The plaintiff alleged that Goodyear was allowing a third-party company to intercept, eavesdrop, and store transcripts of the conversations, which is prohibited by the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA).

Do you live in California? Did you use a chat feature on a commercial website? You may be eligible to file a civil suit for invasion of privacy and get financial compensation. Contact us now.

CIPA Claim: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Goodyear Wiretapping Lawsuit

The California Central District Court recently issued a ruling in a case involving allegations that Goodyear Tires violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) by wiretapping user chats on the company’s website. The federal court agreed with the plaintiff that the chat feature violated the CIPA, ruling that the plaintiff contends that Goodyear used a third-party service to “intercept in real time” website visitors’ chat conversations. The court added that the allegation that user messages were unlawfully intercepted “is to be taken as true at this stage of the case.”

In her CIPA claim, the plaintiff alleged that visitors to the Goodyear Tires website share “sensitive personal information” when they use the chat conversation. Significantly, the court ruled that the plaintiff pled sufficient facts for a claim under § 631(a) of the CIPA by showing that chat communications were intercepted, and those communications plausibly contained “more than mere record information” such as her name and address.

Wiretapping of Smartphone Communications

The California Central District Court also addressed the fact that the plaintiff accessed the Goodyear Tires website on her smartphone, which is considered a cellular phone with web capabilities. The federal court noted the precedent set by other courts that have applied § 632.7 of the CIPA to internet-based communications, ruling that the plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that users of Goodyear’s chat feature have a reasonable expectation of privacy because they share highly sensitive personal data.

California Has the Strongest Data Privacy Laws in the Country

California’s consumer protection laws include the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), and the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA). The CIPA requires companies to get permission before recording any online chats, while the CCPA gives customers the right to prevent companies from sharing their personal data and the CPRA bolsters those digital privacy protections. California’s data privacy laws go even further by placing the onus on companies to make efforts to warn customers if their phone conversations or online chats are being monitored or recorded. In fact, California has some of the strongest such laws in the country. This may be why Goodyear’s terms of use include a forum selection clause requiring claims to be filed in another state: Ohio.

Goodyear Website Terms of Use

The Goodyear Tires website has a “Terms of Use and Privacy Policy” hyperlink at the bottom of the homepage. Site visitors can only see this link by scrolling all the way down on the website. When a user clicks on this link, they are directed to a “Terms, Conditions & Privacy Policy” page that includes another link for Terms of Use. There is no option for the user to click a button acknowledging that they have read the terms of use. Buried deep on this page is a section on “Applicable Laws,” which includes a forum selection clause stating that anyone who uses the Goodyear website automatically consents to litigating any legal disputes in an Ohio courtroom.

Goodyear Forum Selection Clause

In a recent lawsuit filed in California by Los Angeles false advertising attorney Robert Tauler against Goodyear, the tire company attempted to get the case moved to a jurisdiction with less stringent consumer protection laws. Goodyear specifically requested that the venue be changed from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

Goodyear Tires argued that the plaintiff already agreed to having any legal proceedings handled in Ohio because she used the Goodyear website and automatically consented to the forum selection clause contained in the website’s “Terms of Use.” Robert Tauler responded on behalf of the plaintiff and persuasively argued that it was not possible for the plaintiff to legally consent to the forum selection clause because there was neither actual nor constructive notice of the “Terms of Use.”

The California federal trial court hearing the case ultimately rejected Goodyear’s motion to change venue, which means that the case will be adjudicated in the California Central District Court and decided under California’s very strong invasion of privacy and consumer protection laws. The court gave several reasons for ruling in favor of the consumer-plaintiff and against Goodyear, including contract formation laws which require mutual assent in order for a contract to be binding on both parties.

Are Internet Contracts Legally Enforceable?

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals previously identified two categories of internet contracts like the Goodyear terms of use:

  1. Clickwrap Agreements: Site visitors must check a box to confirm that they agree with the website’s terms and conditions of use.
  2. Browsewrap Agreements: Site visitors are able to click on a hyperlink that will take them to a page with the website’s terms and conditions of use.

An important aspect of browsewrap agreements is that it is possible for a site visitor to continue using a website without knowing that the agreement even exists. That’s because browsewrap agreements like the one on the Goodyear Tires website do not require site visitors to take any affirmative action. This creates a legal issue for internet contracts that rely on browsewrap agreements since users might not have an opportunity to assent to the terms of use. Courts have held that such a contract can only be valid if the website user had either actual or constructive notice of the terms and conditions.

Goodyear Browsewrap Agreement

The Goodyear browsewrap agreement does not qualify as a valid, legally binding internet contract because the website terms of use are inconspicuous: the hyperlink can only be seen when the user scrolls to the bottom of the page, and the text does not stand out against the background colors. This does not provide the user with sufficient notice. In Wilson v. Huuuge, Inc., the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that courts should not enforce a similar smartphone app agreement “where the terms are buried at the bottom of the page or tucked away in obscure corners of the website.”

Additionally, there is nothing on the Goodyear Tires website that requires the consumer to click a button, check a box, or take any other action that would unambiguously convey their assent to the terms of use. This also means that site visitors are not provided with constructive notice of the website terms of use which they are supposedly agreeing to abide by.

Class Action Lawsuit Against Goodyear Tires for Violating California’s Wiretapping Law

When you visit a website, you have an expectation that your personal data will be protected and that any conversations you have on the website will remain confidential. The Los Angeles consumer protection attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP help clients file CIPA claims both individually and in class action lawsuits against companies that violate California’s data privacy laws. For example, our attorneys have represented individuals whose data was compromised due to illegal wiretapping and eavesdropping, including chat conversations on company websites.

The CIPA is a criminal statute that subjects companies to criminal penalties, including jail time and substantial fines. Victims can also bring civil lawsuits to recover statutory damages of $5,000 for each illegally recorded conversation. In some cases, it may be possible to recover treble damages, meaning that plaintiffs are eligible for up to three (3) times the total economic damages caused by the invasion of privacy.

Contact the California Consumer Protection Attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP Today

Did you use the chat feature on the Goodyear Tires website? Did you use a chat feature on any other commercial website? If so, your personal data may have been unlawfully recorded without your consent and in violation of both state and federal wiretapping laws. The California consumer protection lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP can help you. Call 310-590-3927 or send an email to learn more and find out if you are eligible to file a CIPA claim.

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.

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.