case study on consumer rights

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Take action

• Report an antitrust violation
• File adjudicative documents
• Find banned debt collectors
• View competition guidance
• Competition Matters Blog

Slow the Roll-up: Help Shine a Light on Serial Acquisitions

View all Competition Matters Blog posts

We work to advance government policies that protect consumers and promote competition.

View Policy

Search or browse the Legal Library

Find legal resources and guidance to understand your business responsibilities and comply with the law.

Browse legal resources

• Find policy statements
• Submit a public comment

Vision and Priorities

Memo from Chair Lina M. Khan to commission staff and commissioners regarding the vision and priorities for the FTC.

Technology Blog

Avoiding outages and preventing widespread system failures.

View all Technology Blog posts

Advice and Guidance

Learn more about your rights as a consumer and how to spot and avoid scams. Find the resources you need to understand how consumer protection law impacts your business.

• Report fraud
• Report identity theft
• Register for Do Not Call
• Sign up for consumer alerts
• Get Business Blog updates
• Get your free credit report
• Find refund cases
• Order bulk publications
• Consumer Advice
• Shopping and Donating
• Credit, Loans, and Debt
• Jobs and Making Money
• Unwanted Calls, Emails, and Texts
• Identity Theft and Online Security
• Business Guidance
• Advertising and Marketing
• Credit and Finance
• Privacy and Security
• By Industry
• For Small Businesses
• Browse Business Guidance Resources
• Business Blog

Servicemembers: Your tool for financial readiness

Visit militaryconsumer.gov

Get consumer protection basics, plain and simple

Visit consumer.gov

Learn how the FTC protects free enterprise and consumers

Visit Competition Counts

Looking for competition guidance?

• Competition Guidance

News and Events

Latest news, ftc publishes request for public comment on proposed modification to hisa’s assessment methodology rule.

View News and Events

Upcoming Event

Office hours for librarians - november 7, 2024.

View more Events

Sign up for the latest news

Follow us on social media

Noncompete Rule: What You Should Know

Visit the Noncompetes feature page for more information, including factsheets featuring stories on how the rule can benefit Americans.

Latest Data Visualization

FTC Refunds to Consumers

Explore refund statistics including where refunds were sent and the dollar amounts refunded with this visualization.

About the FTC

Our mission is protecting the public from deceptive or unfair business practices and from unfair methods of competition through law enforcement, advocacy, research, and education.

Learn more about the FTC

Meet the Chair

Lina M. Khan was sworn in as Chair of the Federal Trade Commission on June 15, 2021.

Chair Lina M. Khan

Looking for legal documents or records? Search the Legal Library instead.

• Cases and Proceedings
• Premerger Notification Program
• Merger Review
• Anticompetitive Practices
• Competition and Consumer Protection Guidance Documents
• Warning Letters
• Consumer Sentinel Network
• Criminal Liaison Unit
• FTC Refund Programs
• Notices of Penalty Offenses
• Advocacy and Research
• Advisory Opinions
• Cooperation Agreements
• Federal Register Notices
• Public Comments
• Policy Statements
• International
• Office of Technology Blog
• Military Consumer
• Consumer.gov
• Bulk Publications
• Data and Visualizations
• Stay Connected
• Commissioners and Staff
• Bureaus and Offices
• Budget and Strategy
• Office of Inspector General
• Careers at the FTC

Legal Library: Cases and Proceedings

Every year the FTC brings hundreds of cases against individuals and companies for violating consumer protection and competition laws that the agency enforces. These cases can involve fraud, scams, identity theft, false advertising, privacy violations, anti-competitive behavior and more. The Legal Library has detailed information about cases we have brought in federal court or through our internal administrative process, called an adjudicative proceeding. 

Refine your results

• Record Types Adjudicative Proceedings Banned Debt and Mortgage Relief Providers Banned Debt Collectors Closing Letters Commission Decision Volumes Commission Letters Commissioner Statements Merits Briefs Petitions to Quash Process Enforcement Resolution of Referrals from BBB National Programs
• Mission Competition Consumer Protection FTC Operations
• Type of Action Federal Administrative Process Enforcement

Scott Shell, In the Matter of

Caremark rx, zinc health services, et al., in the matter of (insulin).

The FTC filed a lawsuit against the three largest prescription drug benefit managers (PBMs)—Caremark Rx, Express Scripts (ESI), and OptumRx—and their affiliated group purchasing organizations (GPOs) for engaging in anticompetitive and unfair rebating practices that have artificially inflated the list price of insulin drugs.

Asbury Automotive Group, Inc., et al., In the Matter of

The Federal Trade Commission is acting against a large automotive dealer group, Asbury Automotive, for systematically charging consumers for costly add-on items they did not agree to or were falsely told were required as part of their purchase. The FTC also alleges that Asbury discriminates against Black and Latino consumers, targeting them with unwanted and higher-priced add-ons.

In an administrative complaint, the FTC alleges that three Texas dealerships owned by Asbury that operate as David McDavid Ford Ft. Worth, David McDavid Honda Frisco, and David McDavid Honda Irving, along with Ali Benli, who acted as general manager of those dealerships, engaged in a variety of practices to sneak hidden fees for unwanted add-ons past consumers. These tactics included a practice called “payment packing,” where the dealerships convinced consumers to agree to monthly payments that were larger than needed to pay for the agreed-upon price of the car, and then “packed” add-on items to the sales contract to make up that difference.

Tapestry, Inc./Capri Holdings Limited, In the Matter of

H&r block, in the matter of.

The Federal Trade Commission is taking action against tax preparation company H&R Block for unfairly deleting consumers’ tax data and requiring them to contact customer service when they downgrade to more affordable online products, and deceptively marketing their products as “free” when they were not free for many consumers. These practices cost consumers time and money.

Statement of Commissioner Andrew N. Ferguson Dissenting in Part and Concurring in the Denial of the Motion In the Matter of H&R Block, Inc., et al.

File Statement of Commissioner Andrew N. Ferguson Dissenting in Part and Concurring in the Denial of the Motion In the Matter of H&R Block, Inc., et al. (419.37 KB)

Statement of Chair Lina M. Khan Joined by Commissioner Alvaro M. Bedoya Concurring in the Denial of the Motion In the Matter of H&R Block, Inc., et al.

File Statement of Chair Lina M. Khan Joined by Commissioner Alvaro M. Bedoya Concurring in the Denial of the Motion In the Matter of H&R Block, Inc., et al. (203.62 KB)

Hargrove & Associates, Inc.’s Petition to Quash or Limit Civil Investigative Demand

File Hargrove & Associates, Inc.’s Petition to Quash or Limit Civil Investigative Demand (15.91 MB)

Michael Hewitt, In the Matter of

Statement of commissioner rebecca kelly slaughter regarding the final trade regulation rule concerning recurring subscriptions and other negative option programs.

File Statement of Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter Regarding the Final Trade Regulation Rule Concerning Recurring Subscriptions and Other Negative Option Programs (133.83 KB)

A Letter to a Latino Public Servant: A Statement in Honor of Hispanic Heritage Month

File A Letter to a Latino Public Servant: A Statement in Honor of Hispanic Heritage Month (234.23 KB)

Tempur Sealy International, Inc. and Mattress Firm Group Inc., In the Matter of

The Federal Trade Commission moved to block Tempur Sealy International, Inc.’s (Tempur Sealy) proposed $4 billion acquisition of Mattress Firm Group Inc. (Mattress Firm).

The Commission issued an administrative complaint and authorized a lawsuit in federal court to block the acquisition, alleging that Tempur Sealy—the world’s largest mattress supplier and manufacturer—will have the ability and incentive to suppress competition and raise prices for mattresses for millions of consumers once it acquires Mattress Firm.

Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Melissa Holyoak re Negative Option Rule

File Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Melissa Holyoak re Negative Option Rule (313.88 KB)

RivX Automation Corp., et al., FTC and State of Florida v.

The Federal Trade Commission is sending more than $222,000 in refunds to consumers harmed by a deceptive mortgage relief operation known as Lanier Law. The scheme collected thousands of dollars in upfront fees from homeowners by promising to lower their monthly payments but then failed to deliver. As a result of a lawsuit filed by the Federal Trade Commission and the State of Florida, a federal court has ordered so-called “trucking automation” company RivX to cease its operations over allegations the firm has scammed consumers out of millions of dollars with deceptive promises of trucking industry investment opportunities.

The complaint filed by the FTC and the Florida Office of Attorney General alleges that RivX, along with its owner Antonio Rivodo and company executive Noah Wooten, have used deceptive claims of guaranteed income to entice consumers to pay $75,000 dollars or more to buy trucks that they often never received. 

Statement of Chair Lina M. Khan Joined by Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Commissioner Alvaro M. Bedoya Regarding The Final Premerger Notification Form and the Hart-Scott-Rodino Rules and Regarding the FY2023 HSR Annual Report to Congress

File Statement of Chair Lina M. Khan Joined by Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Commissioner Alvaro M. Bedoya Regarding The Final Premerger Notification Form and the Hart-Scott-Rodino Rules and Regarding the FY2023 HSR Annual Report to Congress (293.75 KB)

Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Melissa Holyoak Regarding Hart-Scott-Rodino Annual Report, Fiscal Year 2023

File Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Melissa Holyoak Regarding Hart-Scott-Rodino Annual Report, Fiscal Year 2023 (147.6 KB)

Statement of Commissioner Alvaro M. Bedoya Joined by Chair Lina M. Khan and Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter Regarding Amendments to the Hart-Scott-Rodino Rules and Premerger Notification Form and Instructions

File Statement of Commissioner Alvaro M. Bedoya Joined by Chair Lina M. Khan and Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter Regarding Amendments to the Hart-Scott-Rodino Rules and Premerger Notification Form and Instructions (227.44 KB)

Concurring Statement of Commissioner Andrew N. Ferguson In the Matter of Amendments to the Premerger Notification and Report Form and Instructions, and the Hart-Scott-Rodino Rule 16 C.F.R. Parts 801 and 803

File Concurring Statement of Commissioner Andrew N. Ferguson In the Matter of Amendments to the Premerger Notification and Report Form and Instructions, and the Hart-Scott-Rodino Rule 16 C.F.R. Parts 801 and 803 (299.15 KB)

Statement of Commissioner Melissa Holyoak Regarding Final Premerger Notification Form and the Hart-Scott-Rodino Rules

File Statement of Commissioner Melissa Holyoak Regarding Final Premerger Notification Form and the Hart-Scott-Rodino Rules (268.89 KB)

Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Andrew N. Ferguson Regarding the FY2023 HSR Annual Report to Congress

File Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Andrew N. Ferguson Regarding the FY2023 HSR Annual Report to Congress (153.63 KB)

See how AARP Foundation helped 1 million+ seniors bounce back from hardship in 2023. Watch our highlights video

Tax Preparation

Experience Corps

You have the power to change the lives of seniors in poverty .

1 in 3 older adults struggle to meet their basic needs. Your gift can help seniors secure good jobs, get the benefits they've earned, and stay connected to their communities.

• right_container

Get Involved

News & Stories

Executive Leadership

Board Members

Financials & Governance

Our Mission

Empowering Older Workers

Work Programs and Career Support for Older Adults

Legal Advocacy

At the Intersection of Aging and Social Justice

Grantmaking

Current Opportunities

Ways to Give

Donate Today

Make a Gift to Help Struggling Seniors

Partnerships

Bring Our Programs and Services to Your Community

Volunteer with Tax-Aide

Help Older Adults Prepare Taxes

Volunteer with Experience Corps

Make a Difference in a Child's Life

Our Programs & Services

Find Local Assistance

Food Security

Make Food More Affordable

Workorce Development

Build Job Training Skills and Coaching

Medicare Savings Programs

Save on Medicare

SCSEP - Paid Job Training

Senior Community Service Employment

Featured Story

Jeannie's Life Spent Serving the Senior Community

Litigation In the News

Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Raytheon for Age Discrimination

Our Video Gallery

See How We Work to Improve Quality of Life for Older Adults

2024 Supreme Court Cases Preview

What's at Stake for Older Adults

You are now leaving AARP.org and going to a website that is not operated by AARP. A different privacy policy and terms of service will apply.

Looking Ahead: Consumer

The Court is likely to continue to evaluate consumers’ right to have their day in court in the coming year. In the decade since the Supreme Court decided AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion , 563 U.S. 333 (2011) , clauses requiring mandatory pre-dispute arbitration and prohibiting class actions have proliferated. In Concepcion , the Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempted a California law under which class-action bans in arbitration clauses were deemed to violate state public policy and, thus, were unenforceable . Id. at 343. As of 2018, at least half of U.S. households and 25 million employees were subject to mandatory arbitration clauses prohibiting class actions.

You have the power to change the lives of seniors in poverty

Make a Gift

The importance of arbitration clauses in civil litigation, thus, continues undiminished, and two cert petitions pending before the Court provide further opportunities for the Court to clarify the reach of arbitration. Both cases, Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (No. 20-1573) , and HRB Tax Group v. Snarr (No. 20-1570) , challenge judicial decisions holding that California laws authorizing plaintiffs to proceed in representative capacities are not preempted by the FAA.

AARP Foundation Highlights

Thanks to the support of our donors and partners in 2022, we helped older adults with low income secure more than $726 million in new income, benefits, refunds, and credits.

In Moriana , a plaintiff whose employment contract required her to waive her right to bring a private attorney general action sued her employer under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) for allegedly violating California labor law. Moriana v. Viking River Cruises, Inc ., No. B297327, 2020 WL 5584508, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 18, 2020) . Under PAGA, a plaintiff can seek damages against her employer on behalf of herself and other employees if the State declines to intervene in the case. Petition for Writ of Certiorari, at 8, Moriana (20-1573). Those employees receive a quarter of any monetary recovery, with the remaining three-quarters going to the State. Id. at 9. The California Supreme Court has held that Concepcion does not require arbitration of a PAGA claim because such claims represent a dispute between an employer and the State, whereas the aim of the FAA is to ensure efficient resolution of disputes over a litigant’s private rights. Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC , 59 Cal. 4th 348, 384 (Cal. 2014) . (The Ninth Circuit has also rejected a challenge to Iskanian , though on the grounds that PAGA actions do not raise the same efficiency concerns as class actions.) The Viking Cruises cert. petition argues that Iskanian is nearly identical to Concepcion , in that both involved the State declining to enforce an arbitration agreement pursuant to an important public interest and asks the Supreme Court to overrule Iskanian . Petition for Writ of Certiorari, at 2-3, Moriana (20-1573).

The second case, HRB Tax Group v. Snarr , involves a California rule governing “public injunctions,” which are defined as injunctions that have “‘the primary purpose and effect of’ prohibiting unlawful acts that threaten future injury to the general public.’” Snarr v. HRB Tax Group, Inc. , 839 Fed.Appx. 53, 54 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting McGill v. Citibank, N.A. , 393 P.3d 85, 90 (Cal. 2017)). California case law makes unenforceable a contract that waives the right to seek public injunctive relief in all forums. Snarr , 389 Fed. Appx. at 54. In Snarr , the plaintiff sought a public injunction against HRB, claiming the tax preparation company misleadingly steered tax filers away from a free service and toward a paid one, in violation of California consumer protection laws. Id. at 55. The plaintiff’s arbitration agreement with HRB forbids public injunctions and so is unenforceable under California law, and the Ninth Circuit refused to compel arbitration of the plaintiff’s claim. Id. at 54

In so doing, the court relied on Blair v. Rent-A-Center, Inc. , 928 F.3d 819 (9th Cir. 2019) , a prior circuit case holding that the FAA does not preempt the public-injunction rule. Blair rests on the premises that, unlike the ban on class-action waivers at issue in Concepcion , the public-injunction rule does not single out arbitration and does not undermine the purported efficiency and informality of bilateral arbitration, given that a plaintiff can seek a public injunction in a bilateral arbitration without resort to class-certification procedures. Id .  at 827-29

In its petition seeking review of Snarr , HRB rejects these arguments, contending that the rule’s focus on the general public and the higher stakes and complexity at issue undermine the traditional benefits of bilateral arbitration. Petition for Writ of Certiorari, at 16-17, Snarr (No. 20-1573). HRB also argues that, in practice, the public-injunction rule allows plaintiffs to avoid arbitration by seeking public injunctions. Id. at 5. In opposing Supreme Court review, Snarr distinguishes substantively complex claims (like those for a public injunctions) from the procedural complexity at the heart of the Court’s arbitration jurisprudence and notes that the evasion HRB raises can occur only in the particular cases of arbitration provisions drafted as HRB’s is. Respondent’s Brief in Opposition, at 26-27, Snarr (No. 20-1573). Snarr additionally argues that, under Supreme Court precedent, the “FAA does not require enforcement of arbitration provisions that expressly waive statutory claims and remedies,” as HRB’s contract does, and that the public-injunction rule applies equally to all contracts, whether or not they contain arbitration clauses. Id. at 5-6.

If the Supreme Court takes up Viking Cruises or Snarr , we will learn how far the Court is willing to extend its arbitration jurisprudence. Any decisions will have important consequences for consumer litigation in California and other states authorizing private-attorney-general suits and public injunctions.

Ali Naini [email protected]

View the Full Supreme Court Preview

Unlock Access to AARP Members Edition

Already a Member? Login

Zebersky Payne Shaw Lewenz is a boutique litigation and trial law firm that handles almost exclusively high-stakes litigation matters. Though its flagship office is in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Zebersky Payne Shaw Lewenz handles complex commercial litigation, class actions, consumer protection litigation, personal injury, and wrongful death matters across the United States and the world.

11 times Big Brands Violated Consumer Protection Laws

• May 2, 2018 September 21, 2022
• Jordan A. Shaw

With the recent Facebook fiasco, consumer protection and the safety of our personal information is yet again in the public spotlight.

Facebook is not the only big name brand out there who has dropped the ball on consumer’s safety in recent years.

Many brands we know, and trust, have made costly mistakes in regards to keeping their consumers safe. It just does not always hit your newsfeed.

The other problem is, most people are not even sure about what consumer protection means.

It can be fuzzy for most people at times.

That is why:  When trying to explain the scope of consumer protection laws to clients (and family members), I always find it best to use everyday examples.In this post, I will show you 11 times when brand names we all know (and trust), violated the Consumer Protection Act.

But, first…

What is consumer protection?

Consumer protection relates to a specific area of law that ensures the ethical and fair treatment of consumers of products and services in the US and promotes a competitive marketplace for the benefit of the consumer.In the US, modern consumer protection law started as early as the 19 th century, when public crises forced the government to respond by creating a body with jurisdiction to oversee products and services offered to the public.

Since then…

Consumer protection laws have evolved to cover topics like ethical marketing and advertising, identity and privacy protection, financial services regulation, deceitful business activities, anti-trust laws and more.

All of this falls under the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission or FTC.

What is the FTC?

Founded by President Woodrow Wilson in 1914, the FTC, or Federal Trade Commission, is a government body created to protect consumers in the US from unethical or unfair treatment and deceptive business practices.

On their website, FTC.gov , the Federal Trade Commission says that it has three goals:

• To protect consumers by preventing fraud, deception and unfair business practices in the marketplace,
• To maintain competition by preventing anti-competitive business practices, and lastly;
• To advance individual and collective organizational performance .

To achieve its goals:

The Federal Trade Commission works closely with people from all sectors, from policy and lawmakers to businesses owners and the public and focuses on three main areas of activities:

1.Advisory Board

The FTC provides research and advice to key national and international governmental agencies to help guide and shape rules that help to maintain a safe and fair marketplace

2  Law Enforcement

The FTC acts as both an investigator and an enforcer. It collects complaints from the public, conducts follow-up investigations and, if necessary, files a lawsuit against the offending entity.

(examples coming up soon)

3. Education

The FTC provides educational workshops and materials for both the general public and business communities to promote a fair and ethical free Global market while educating people on current scams and fraudulent activities of which to remain aware.

11 Times Big Household Brands Violated Consumer Protection Laws

Every year the FTC can process well over a hundred Consumer Protection Act violation lawsuits.

(You can keep an eye on all of them on the FTC’s website .)

If you were to look though, you probably wouldn’t know most of the companies, so it would be harder to relate to for your daily life.

So, to make things easier:

I grabbed 11 consumer protection cases where big brands you know (and trust), violated the consumer protection act.

Let’s take a look…

AT & T’s Misleading Marketing

Ever wonder how “unlimited” phone plans mean that after watching a certain number of videos on YouTube that your internet would still slow down?

So did the FTC in 2014…

That is when:

They brought a formal complaint against AT & T for misleading customers by marketing “Unlimited” plans that…tended to have too many limitations.

(For the FTC, This falls under what is called the Marketing Practices Division)

The FTC’s complaint was that, while AT&T was promoting “Unlimited” plans…

Once consumers passed a certain level of data usage, their service would slow down – by up to 90%.

If that does not sound unlimited to you, it didn’t to the FTC either, who considered it deceitful advertising, and in direct violation of the Consumer’s Protection Act.

Although this case is still in the courts at the date of writing, AT&T is doing their best to try and dismiss this case.  However, no luck so far.

Reference: AT & T’s Case

Lenovo Risking All With a 3 rd Party Install

All computers come with “bloatware.”

Bloatware is a nickname used to describe pre-installed applications and programs on new computers. Probably named so because of their tendency to fill up (and slow down) what should be an empty machine. Maybe because of the discomfort they cause too.

Most bloatware is harmless…

…but, that was not the case with one such program, which Lenovo pre-installed on their computers.

VisualDiscovery, a popup ad delivery program, came as part of the package when buying a Lenovo computer.

Unbeknownst to Lenovo, this made them an accomplice in violating the Consumer Protection Act, but not because of the popup ad functionality. Although annoying, it is not technically in breach of consumer protection law (yet).

The issue was:

This 3 rd party program could access whatever sensitive information it wanted on the user’s system. This included their online logins, banking details, and in some cases, their social security number.

All in all, a serious breach of the Consumer Protection Act.

(This is an example of a case which would be handled by the Privacy and Identity Protection Division of the FTC)

To remedy the situation, the courts ordered Lenovo to conduct comprehensive software security audits on any pre-installed software to ensure consumers safety.

Plus, they had to get consumers express permission before activating any such software on their new computer.

Reference: Lenovo’s Case

Dish Network Keeps Calling

Telemarketing calls can be annoying.

When you have already put your name on the national Do Not Call registry and STILL get telemarketing calls, it can be infuriating.

That is what many people felt when Dish Network – in connection with their telemarketing partners – made millions, yes, millions, of robocalls to customers on the “Do Not Call” list.

(what are “robocalls”? We talk more about that in this article)

However, regardless of whether someone is on the registry, it is still in breach of the Consumer Protection Act when you use automatic dialing systems to call people with pre-recorded messages without their express written consent.

This rule is the basis of the Telephone Consumers Protection Act (TCPA), an area of Consumer Protection law.

In the end, a class action suit has held against Dish Network, who were forced to pay 341 million dollars for their violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Reference: Dish Network’s Case

DeVry’s Deception

Here’s another example of promising something to consumers that you cannot deliver.

For years, the popular university advertised promises around the idea that their students would find jobs within six months of graduating and would make better money than their peers.

DeVry claimed that as much as 90% of students would have a job within six months of graduating, and would earn up to 15% more than their peers.

A formal investigation from the FTC proved otherwise.

Although it was found to be true that most students did have a job after graduating,  many of the jobs were not in the alumni’s field of study.

They found business graduates working as servers in restaurants, and others working in car sales. DeVry also failed to acknowledge that a number of the students who had jobs six months after graduating already had those jobs before graduating .

DeVry’s promise was misleading.

It led consumers to believe that they had a high certainty of obtaining a job within their chosen field after studying with DeVry.

The court agreed that DeVry’s advertising was in direct violation of the Consumer Protection Act.

DeVry ended up paying a $100 Million settlement and had to refrain from such promises in any and all future public communications.

Reference: DeVry’s Case

  Amazon’s Child’s play

Back in the 90s and early 00’s (known as the naughty’s), every parent’s biggest fear was getting a surprise momentous phone bill because of their kid’s shenanigans.

It is still a parent’s fear. The only difference is that now it is the App and Play Stores that makes the hairs on the back of their neck stand on their ends.

The good thing is that thanks to the FTC’s hard work, it is not as easy as it used to be for kids to buy 10,000 tokens on Candy Crush or Plants vs. Zombies.

Up until recently…

Companies like Amazon had little in place to protect parents from paying for in-app purchases made by their, less financially astute, children.

This ended up costing parents millions of dollars in app purchases they did not approve.

To remedy the situation:

The FTC stepped in, stating that Amazon must change its in-app purchase processes to protect account holders from paying for purchases they did not willingly make.

Amazon has since instated a refund policy for these occurrences and put new security measures in place to stop children from making large purchases on their parents’ accounts.

As a side note, Apple went through this exact same issue in 2014 for in-app purchases made without a parent’s consent.

Reference: Amazon’s Case

Volkswagen’s Cheated Tests

You probably heard about this example in the news.

In their monumental lawsuit, Volkswagen had to pay more than 14 Billion dollars to fix problems they had caused by deceiving consumers.

What did they do?

Volkswagen cheated emissions tests, reporting that their cars were up to the standards they should have been…

…and they deceived customers about how “eco-friendly” their vehicles were in marketing communications.

These actions put them in violation of both the Environmental Protection Act and the Consumer protection act.

As Deputy Attorney General Sally Q. Yates succinctly described it:

“By duping the regulators, Volkswagen turned nearly half a million American drivers into unwitting accomplices in an unprecedented assault on our atmosphere,”

This is a perfect example of:

How consumer protection violations not only end in costly lawsuits and damages. They also have a ripple effect that changes the market’s view of a company for years to come.

Just like a personal relationship, a consumer’s trust is hard to win back once broken.

Reference: Volkswagen’s Case

Western Union Supports Scammers

If you have ever been scammed online…

…chanced are the transaction took place through a Western Union.

In fact, many overseas scammers rely heavily on the access to international transfers that Western Unions provides.

————–

For example:

Nigerian 419 scams, otherwise known as “advance fee” scams.  These (now famous) scams are when a scammer finds a way to manipulate an individual to send them money.

This type of scam usually uses a story that creates an emotional connection with the person to build trust which then leads to favors or asking for help…

Alternatively it involves promises of large sums of money, in exchange for a small fee.

(How many Nigerian Princes have emailed you in the last 12 months?)

There are other countries from where these types of scams originate, but as over 51% of these types of scams originate from Nigeria, these scams are referred to as Nigerian scams.

The criminal code for this kind of scam is 419, explaining the number.

———–

Because so many of such scams successfully used Western Union’s services to complete their transactions, the FTC filed a suit against Western Union in 2014, issuing a 586 Million dollar fine to the company to reimburse those affected between January 2014 and 2017.

If you were affected by a scam operated through Western Union during that period, you can still (as of the time of this writing) apply for a claim in the case. See the reference below.

Reference: Western Union’s Case

Uber’s Two Strikes

Uber is often criticized for its disruptive business model and actions.

But, they crossed the Consumer Protection line with, not one, but two separate accounts of violating the consumer protection act.

The first time was back in 2017.

This is when Uber was caught making hyperbolic promises about how much new Uber drivers could make, explicitly quoting high earnings for both New York and California drivers.

When the FTC conducted their independent research, they found average yearly earnings up to $30,000 lower than claimed by Uber.

This deceitful advertising cost Uber 20 Million dollars in settlements.

The other instant was more recent when it became known that Uber employees were able to access and misuse personal data obtained from ride-sharing contractors.

Although still under investigation…

…it is apparent that an Uber employee’s access key was used to make over 100,000 Uber driver’s bank account details and social security details public.

The severity of this breach is still yet to be seen because such a thing can have lifelong repercussions for the drivers ( a social security number is with you for life)

The case continues…

Reference: Uber’s Case 1 , Uber’s Case 2

7 – Eleven Eats Competition

Consumer protection does not always have to be about deceit or unethical behavior.

It also involves protecting consumers through promoting competition.

When companies have competition, it motivates them to offer the best possible deal to consumers, to “beat” their competitors.

That is why you see many brands trying their hardest to improve quality or lower prices.

In fact, there is a point in Apple’s history where Bill Gates bailed Steve Jobs out of potential bankruptcy precisely for this reason.

Without competition, a business has fewer incentives to lower prices or strive to make better quality products for its customers.

This is why:

When 7 – Eleven announced that it was buying 1,000+ of its competitor’s stores, the FTC took notice.

By doing so, they radically reduced competition within multiple geographical marketplaces, which would lower incentives for them to provide their customers the best prices.

(This falls under the protection subcategory known as anti-trust laws)

In this case, 7-Eleven’s parent company had to agree upon restructuring its deal to maintain a fair level competition in the marketplace.

Reference: 7-Eleven’s Case

Herbalife Pays For the Wrong Reasons

If you have ever been to a seminar hosted by a Multi-level marketing company, you know how many grandiose stories of a person joining and just a few months later being able to quit their job and buy a mansion, you will hear at those events.

The problem is, this is often misleading for new “recruits” who sign up thinking the company will solve all their life’s problems.

When Herbalife, a major international Multi-Level Marketing brand with over 4 Billion dollars in revenues, actively promised new registrants that they would have the opportunity to quit their jobs, make career level incomes and potentially become rich in the process…

A Consumer Protection investigation followed, which proved their claims to be false.

In reality, less than half of all Herbalife salespeople made less than $300 in a single reporting period.

The other problem that surfaced was their benefits structure. As it turned out, Herbalife incentivized the recruiting of new people more than the purchasing of useful goods.

This incentive structure is the basic principle of a pyramid scheme, which is illegal.

All these findings led to a $200 million dollar lawsuit and a court order to restructure their business model and payment structures.

Reference: Herbalife’s Case

Lending Club’s Hidden Fees

Nobody likes hidden fees . Especially the Consumer Protection Act.

The Lending Club is a popular peer-to-peer lending platform that connects those they call investors, interested in lending money at an interest rate, with borrowers.

This peer-to-peer lending platform promoted its services as free of “hidden fees” or surprises, but this was not true.

Investigations found that the Lending Club issued hidden charges that ended up costing their customers hundreds, or even thousands, of dollars more than they thought they would have to pay.

Furthermore:

Many potential borrower clients received congratulatory emails insinuating they had passed all criteria to obtain a loan, before Lending Club’s final credit history checks, which could often result in a final rejection for the loan.

In early 2018, Lending Club was sued for deceitful marketing activities and unlawful hidden fees.

Want to know how to avoid hidden fees? Read this post.

What did you think?

In my opinion, these examples are a reminder that we, the consumers, can’t just rely on companies to do the right thing. It’s our duty to stay vigilant and keep our eyes out for unethical behavior in the marketplace. Every one of us can help to keep big corporations honest.

If you have experienced a violation of the Consumers Protection Act, leave a comment below.

Or, better yet; give us a call. 1+ (877) 722-5943

(954) 989-7781 (954) 989-6333

Hablamos Español and Nós Falamos Portugues

RECENT NEWS

PractICE AREAS

• Commercial Litigation
• Personal Injury
• Consumer Litigation
• Class Action Litigation
• Insurance Litigation
• Healthcare Litigation
• Business Law
• Real Estate

The Evolution of Consumer Rights Through Case Law

Estimated reading time: 9 minutes

Consumer rights in California have evolved significantly over the years, shaped by a series of landmark cases that have established important precedents in consumer protection law. From safeguarding against unfair business practices to ensuring transparency and accountability, judicial decisions have played a crucial role in defining the rights of consumers and the responsibilities of businesses. California, known for its progressive legal landscape, has often led the way in protecting consumers, addressing issues ranging from false advertising and deceptive practices to data privacy and product safety. 

The Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA)

Vasquez v. superior court (1971)  .

Leonard Vasquez and others filed a class-action lawsuit against several companies for deceptive advertising and fraudulent sales practices. The plaintiffs sought to represent a large group of consumers who were misled by the defendants. The key issue was whether consumers could bring a class action lawsuit for deceptive practices under California law, specifically in the context of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) .

The California Supreme Court ruled that class action lawsuits were permissible under the CLRA. The court emphasized the importance of class actions in consumer protection, particularly when individual damages are small, making it impractical for consumers to sue individually. This case significantly expanded consumers’ ability to challenge fraudulent practices through class actions, allowing them to pool resources and seek redress as a group.

Flores v. Southcoast Automotive Liquidators, Inc. (2017)

Krystal Flores purchased a car from Southcoast Automotive Liquidators, Inc., based on deceptive advertising that misrepresented the car’s condition and price. After realizing the car had significant issues and that the sales practices were misleading, Flores sued the dealership. The case centered on whether Flores could pursue claims for fraud and under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) in addition to remedies provided under the CLRA, especially after the dealership made a “correction offer” under the CLRA.

The court held that the CLRA’s remedies are not exclusive, and a correction offer under the CLRA does not bar a consumer from pursuing other legal remedies for fraud or under the UCL. The court also awarded damages and imposed an injunction on the dealership’s advertising practices. Flores reinforced the cumulative nature of consumer protection laws, allowing broader protection against deceptive practices.

How Flores Built on Vasquez

Vasquez established the foundational principle that consumers could pursue class actions under the CLRA, making it easier for groups of consumers to seek redress for widespread deceptive practices. Decades later, Flores clarified that even when a business makes a correction offer under the CLRA, consumers can still pursue additional remedies under other laws, such as the UCL or common law fraud. The Flores decision expanded the scope of consumer protection by allowing consumers to seek full compensation through multiple legal channels, even when specific remedies (like class actions) are provided under the CLRA. This marked an evolution in consumer protection, ensuring that businesses could not escape liability by merely complying with one aspect of consumer law. 

False Advertising and Unfair Competition 

Kwikset corp. v. superior court (2011).

Kwikset centered on Kwikset Corporation’ s practice of labeling its locksets as “Made in U.S.A.” when, in fact, they contained foreign-made components or were partially assembled outside the United States. James Benson, a consumer, filed a lawsuit under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and false advertising law, alleging that Kwikset’s labeling was deceptive and misleading. Benson argued that he, along with other consumers, would not have purchased the locksets had they known the true origin of the products. After a bench trial, the court ruled in favor of Benson, finding that Kwikset had engaged in unlawful and deceptive business practices.

The California Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s ruling, emphasizing that consumers have standing to sue under the UCL and false advertising law when they can demonstrate that they were misled by a product’s labeling and suffered economic harm as a result. The court rejected Kwikset’s argument that consumers received the “benefit of the bargain” because the products were not defective and performed as expected. Instead, the court ruled that the economic harm derived from the misleading representation of the product’s origin, which was sufficient to establish standing. This decision affirmed that the misrepresentation itself, regardless of the product’s functionality, could cause economic injury if it influenced the consumer’s purchasing decision.

Impact on Consumer Rights in California

Kwikset broadened the scope of standing under the UCL and false advertising law. The ruling established that consumers who are misled by false advertising, particularly regarding product labeling, can pursue legal action even if the product itself is not defective. This decision underscored the importance of truthful labeling and the protection of consumers from deceptive practices. It ensured that businesses could be held accountable for misleading claims, thereby promoting fair competition and consumer trust in the marketplace. 

California Lemon Law (Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act)

The Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, commonly known as the California Lemon Law, was enacted in 1970 and has been refined through various court cases. It requires manufacturers to repair, replace, or refund “ lemons ,” or defective products, particularly automobiles, that fail to meet quality and performance standards.

Kirzhner v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (2020)

Allen Kirzhner leased a new vehicle from Mercedes-Benz USA in 2012. During the warranty period, the vehicle exhibited multiple defects, including issues with the command system, navigation system, key fob, steering column adjustment, power seats, and coolant level warning light. Kirzhner repeatedly presented the vehicle for repair, but Mercedes-Benz was unable to remedy the defects after a reasonable number of attempts. Nearly six months after filing a lawsuit, Kirzhner accepted a settlement offer from Mercedes-Benz, which included restitution or replacement under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, commonly known as California’s Lemon Law. The main legal issue was whether Kirzhner could recover vehicle registration renewal and nonoperation fees as either collateral charges or incidental damages under the Act.

The California Supreme Court ruled that registration renewal and nonoperation fees are not recoverable as collateral charges because they are not auxiliary to or do not supplement the price paid for the vehicle. However, these fees may be recoverable as incidental damages if they were incurred as a result of the manufacturer’s breach of its duty to promptly provide a replacement vehicle or restitution under the Act. The court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine if these fees were incurred as a result of Mercedes-Benz’s failure to comply with its obligations under the Act.

Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., LLC (2015)

Gil Sanchez purchased a used Mercedes-Benz from Valencia Holding Company, LLC. Sanchez filed a class action lawsuit, alleging that Valencia engaged in various unfair practices, including false representations about the car’s condition. The sales contract included an arbitration agreement with a class action waiver and other provisions favoring the seller, such as allowing appeals to a panel of arbitrators if the award exceeded $100,000 or included injunctive relief. The trial court denied Valencia’s motion to compel arbitration, deeming the class action waiver and the entire arbitration agreement unenforceable under California law. This decision came in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011), which held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts state laws that prohibit class action waivers in arbitration agreements.

The California Supreme Court ruled that the class action waiver was enforceable under the FAA, as mandated by Concepcion. However, the court held that other provisions of the arbitration agreement were unconscionable under California law, including those related to arbitration appeals and the requirement for the appealing party to front the costs of the appeal. The court ultimately reversed the lower court’s ruling on the unconscionability of the arbitration agreement but upheld the enforceability of the class action waiver.

Consumer Privacy

Pineda v. williams-sonoma stores, inc. (2011).

The Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 prohibits businesses from requesting and recording a customer’s personal identification information during a credit card transaction. Plaintiff Jessica Pineda filed a lawsuit against Williams-Sonoma, alleging that the store violated the Act by asking for and recording her ZIP code when she made a purchase with a credit card. The ZIP code was then used to obtain her home address through a reverse lookup process.

The central issue in the case was whether a ZIP code constitutes “personal identification information” under the Act. The California Supreme Court held that a ZIP code is indeed personal identification information because it pertains to the cardholder and can be used to identify them when combined with other data, such as a name. The Court emphasized that the Act’s purpose is to protect consumer privacy and prevent the misuse of personal information for marketing or other purposes. By ruling that a ZIP code falls within the scope of the Act’s protections, the Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision and reinforced consumer rights to privacy, setting a precedent that businesses must comply with stringent rules regarding the collection and use of customer information during credit card transactions.

Let Continuing Education of the Bar (CEB) Guide Your Practice

CEB offers comprehensive resources and updates that allow lawyers to stay informed about recent precedents and shifts in the legal landscape. CEB ensures that attorneys can maintain a thorough understanding of current legal standards and changes with its many online resources:

CEB Practitioner: 

CEB’s Practitioner Tool offers a vast array of case law, statutes, and practical guides across various legal fields. This tool streamlines research, enhances legal practice efficiency, and provides up-to-date information, making it invaluable for lawyers seeking quick and reliable legal insights. All Practitioner resources are written by California lawyers, for California lawyers. 

OnLAW Pr o: 

CEB’s all-in-one legal research solution with authoritative practice guides, OnLAW Pro is written by California lawyers for California lawyers. All practice guides are fully integrated with CEB’s primary law research tool, allowing you to research California, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and U.S. Supreme Court case law, as well as California statutes and the California Constitution. OnLAW also comes with TrueCite®, CEB’s powerful case law citator. 

MCLE Solut ions:  

CEB’s MCLE solutions , including CLE Passport and CEB’s CLE Compliance Package, provide a robust platform for California lawyers seeking to fulfill their CLE requirements. These solutions offer a diverse range of courses, covering various legal topics and practice areas. Designed for convenience and flexibility, the programs are available online, allowing attorneys to access high-quality, accredited educational content anytime, anywhere. CEB’s MCLE Solutions are an ideal blend of practicality and expertise, ensuring legal professionals stay informed, compliant, and at the forefront of their field.

Maximize the effectiveness of your legal practice by integrating CEB’s innovative tools into your work. Visit our website to explore these resources and begin transforming your approach to legal challenges. Stay informed and stay ahead with CEB.

Read more related content

Top Consumer Cases in India with Judgements

• Subject-wise Law Notes
• Aishwarya Agrawal
• June 13, 2024

Consumer protection in India has evolved significantly over the years, ensuring that the rights of consumers are upheld and protected. The Consumer Protection Act of 1986 was a milestone in this regard, providing a framework for the redressal of consumer grievances. Over the years, numerous landmark cases have shaped consumer rights in the country.

1. Manjeet Singh Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr

Facts of the Case: In this case, Manjeet Singh purchased a second-hand truck under a hire purchase agreement. The truck was insured by the National Insurance Company. While driving the truck, a passenger asked for a lift. When Singh stopped the truck, the passenger assaulted him and fled with the vehicle. An FIR was lodged and the insurance company was informed of the theft. However, the insurance company rejected the claim, citing a breach of policy terms. Singh approached the District Consumer Disputes Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission, all of which rejected his case. Finally, he approached the Supreme Court.

Judgment: The Supreme Court held that Singh was not at fault. Although there was a breach of policy terms, it was not fundamental enough to terminate the insurance policy. The court directed the insurance company to pay 75% of the insured amount with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing the claim. Additionally, the insurance company was ordered to pay Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation.

2. National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd. & Anr

Facts of the Case: Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd. filed a complaint against the National Insurance Company for denying compensation for damage caused by heavy rain. The insurance company denied relief based on a policy condition stating that claims must be made within 12 months of the event. The insured approached the National Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Judgment: The National Commission held that the claim was actionable and that the goods were insured at the time of the incident. The insurance company was ordered to pay Rs. 21,05,803.89 with 9% interest per annum.

3. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation (KPTC) Vs. Ashok Iron Works Private Limited

Facts of the Case: Ashok Iron Works applied for electricity from KPTC for its iron production. Despite paying charges and receiving confirmation in February 1991, the supply began only in November 1991, causing significant losses. Ashok Iron Works filed a complaint and KPTC argued that the Consumer Protection Act did not cover commercial supply of goods and that the complainant was not a “person” under the Act.

Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that a private company is a “person” under the General Clause Act. The supply of electricity by KPTC to a consumer was deemed a “service” under the Act. The case was sent back to the District Forum for retrial on these grounds.

4. Indian Medical Association Vs. V.P. Shantha and others

Facts of the Case: The Indian Medical Association filed a writ petition seeking to exempt the medical profession from the Consumer Protection Act, arguing that medical negligence should be dealt with by medical experts under their Code of Ethics.

Judgment: The Supreme Court held that medical practitioners could be considered as rendering “service” under the Consumer Protection Act. However, services rendered free of charge by doctors and hospitals would not fall under the Act, except when free services are provided to the poor in government hospitals or when an insurance policy covers the treatment cost.

5. Sehgal School of Competition Vs. Dalbir Singh

Facts of the Case: Dalbir Singh paid Rs. 18,734 for two years of coaching for a medical entrance exam. Disappointed with the quality of coaching, he sought a refund, which was denied. He filed a case against the institute before the National Commission.

Judgment: The National Commission ruled that the non-refundable fee policy was an unfair trade practice. It cited UGC guidelines stating that fees should be refunded, deducting only Rs. 1,000 and proportionate charges for services already availed. The student was entitled to a refund and compensation for legal costs and inconvenience.

6. Sapient Corporation Employees Provident Fund Trust Vs. HDFC & Ors

Facts of the Case: Sapient Corporation Employees Provident Fund Trust maintained an account with HDFC Bank. Despite instructions not to debit any amount without further communication, the bank debited Rs. 1.47 crores for statutory dues to EPFO. The trust challenged this transaction as a deficiency in service.

Judgment: The National Commission dismissed the complaint, stating that the bank had informed the trust and gave due time. The trust was penalised Rs. 25,000 for false litigation.

7. Delhi Development Authority Vs. D.C. Sharma

Facts of the Case: D.C. Sharma paid Rs. 5 lakhs for a DDA plot in 1997. Later, he discovered that the plot had already been allotted to another person in 1995. Sharma approached the District Forum, which dismissed his case. The State Consumer Forum ruled in his favor.

Judgment: The National Commission held that the DDA’s negligence warranted compensation. The DDA was directed to provide an alternate plot or pay Rs. 30 lakhs for the escalated price.

8. V.N. Shrikhande Vs. Anita Sena Fernandes

Facts of the Case: Anita Sena, a nurse by profession, underwent a stone removal surgery from her gall bladder. Despite the surgery, she continued to experience pain. Nine years later, it was discovered that a gauge was left in her abdomen by the surgeon, necessitating a second surgery. She filed charges for negligence and demanded compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs from the doctor, ultimately taking the case to the Supreme Court.

Judgment: The Supreme Court rejected the case on grounds of limitation and evidentiary issues. The court noted that since the nurse worked at the same hospital where the surgery took place, she had ample opportunity over the nine years to consult the doctor. Instead, she chose to consume painkillers. The long silence and lack of immediate action led to the dismissal of her complaint and she was not entitled to any compensation.

9. Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences v Prasanth S. Dhananka & Ors

Facts of the Case: Prasanth S. Dhananka, a 20-year-old engineering student, was admitted to Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences (NIMS) with acute chest pain. Tests revealed a tumor, but its malignancy could not be confirmed. He underwent surgery to remove the tumor, after which he developed paralysis, losing control over his lower limbs and suffering complications such as urinary tract infections and bedsores. The family accused NIMS and the State of Andhra Pradesh of gross negligence, highlighting that no pre-operative tests were conducted, no neurosurgeon was present during the surgery and the consent was only for tumor excision, yet ribs and blood vessels were removed, leading to paralysis.

Judgment: The Supreme Court found significant negligence on the part of the doctors and the hospital. The court awarded damages worth Rs. 1 crore to compensate for present and future medical expenses and the suffering endured by the patient.

10. Spring Meadows Hospital & Anr v Harjol Ahluwalia

Facts of the Case: This appeal involved a hospital defending the negligence of its nurses and a doctor, which resulted in a minor being in a permanent vegetative state after a brain hemorrhage. The key issue was whether the parents of the child, not being the patient themselves, could seek compensation for the mental agony caused to them.

Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the definition of services under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) is broad enough to include both the parents who pay for the services and the child who is the beneficiary. The National Commission was correct in granting compensation to the child for the cost of equipment and recurring expenses due to his vegetative state and to the parents for the mental agony and the lifetime care they would have to provide.

11. Arvind Shah (Dr.) v Kamlaben Kushwaha

Facts of the Case: The complainant alleged that his son died due to wrong treatment by the doctor. The State Commission upheld the negligence and awarded compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs.

Judgment: On appeal, the National Commission noted that the available prescriptions did not include necessary details such as symptoms, vital signs or medical history, which are mandated by the Medical Council of India guidelines. The absence of these details was considered medical negligence. However, due to insufficient evidence directly linking the patient’s death to the doctor’s negligence, the compensation was reduced to Rs. 2.5 lakhs with interest.

12. Poonam Verma v Ashwin Patel & Ors

Facts of the Case: In this case, the respondent, a homeopathic doctor, prescribed allopathic medicines to a patient who subsequently died after not responding to the treatment.

Judgment: The Supreme Court held that practicing allopathic medicine without proper qualifications and registration, as required by the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, was a violation of statutory duty. The respondent was only qualified to practice homeopathy. The court deemed this as actionable negligence and ordered the respondent to pay Rs. 3 lakhs as compensation.

These consumer cases reflect the diverse issues faced by consumers in India, from medical negligence and insurance claims to unfair trade practices. The Consumer Protection Act serves as a critical mechanism for addressing grievances and ensuring that consumer rights are upheld. These landmark judgments not only provide justice to the aggrieved parties but also set important precedents that reinforce the accountability and standards expected across various sectors, thereby protecting consumer interests and promoting fair practices.

You might like

Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023

Estrada Doctrine in International Law

Harvey vs Facey 

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name  *

Email  *

Add Comment  *

Post Comment