JONES DAY TALKS®: Consumer Protection Enforcement Changes Likely After SCOTUS AMG Decision
California Plaintiffs frequently assert a duplicative claim under the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. that relies on a violation of another law to establish...more
Pandemic-related price spikes in consumer goods have attracted the attention of both government enforcers and private plantiffs. In California, Attorney General Xavier Becerra has issued two admonitions against price gouging...more
Earlier this month, the Seventh Circuit joined the consensus across the country, concluding in two separate cases that unions that collected fair share fees prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, 585,...more
A California federal court recently denied a motion to certify a class of Kohl’s customers allegedly misled by false advertising, finding that plaintiff Wendy Chowning’s claim was a copycat of an earlier-filed case, Russell,...more
In Pulaski & Middleman, LLC v. Google, Inc., No. 12-16752, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16723 (9th Cir. Sept. 21, 2015), a Ninth Circuit panel held that individualized damages (or restitution) calculations cannot alone defeat Rule...more
State AGs Settle Negative Option Marketing Case for $1M: Negative option marketing cost one company $1 million in a recent deal with the Attorneys General of New York, Pennsylvania and Washington. According to the...more
The flurry of food mislabeling class actions filed in California federal courts has recently come to a halt under the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Comcast v. Beherend. Comcast requires that putative class action plaintiffs...more