Amicus Briefs

December 8, 2017 | Filed under: Other Areas of Interest
Court:
US District Court - District of Columbia

Amicus Brief in Support of Plantiff in English vs. Trump & Mulvaney

July 13, 2016 | Filed under: Other Areas of Interest | Tagged with: employment law
Court:
California Supreme Court

Amicus Brief in Support of Plaintiff-Appellant in Eileen Connor v. First Student Inc, et al

May 19, 2014 | Filed under: Other Areas of Interest | Tagged with: Consumer Loans
Court:
Supreme Court of Georgia

This brief supports the Appellant's positions on its claims under the Fair Business Practices Act and request that the Court reverse the Georgia Court of Appeals’ determination that contractual language may defeat a FBPA claim as a matter of law.

April 21, 2014 | Filed under: Other Areas of Interest | Tagged with: food labeling
Court:
US District Court - District of Columbia

The amici brief focuses on the far reaching consequences for consumers of food and other products regarding the standard of First Amendment review applied to the disclosures on food labeling packaging.

July 6, 2013 | Filed under: Other Areas of Interest | Tagged with: Credit Cards
Court:
US District Court - Southern District of New York

Amicus Curiae Brief Expressions Hair Design v. Eric Schneiderman

August 25, 2010 | Filed under: Other Areas of Interest | Tagged with: Consumer Loans, Predatory Lending
Court:
Supreme Court of Colorado

Payday lenders, one of the main players in the “fringe banking” industry, target vulnerable borrowers who cannot access traditional sources of credit and, rather than helping them handle a short-term crisis, actually exacerbate their financial distress. The relationships that Cash Advance and Preferred Cash Loans claim to have with various tribal entities should be scrutinized to ensure it is not merely the most recent version of decades-old ruses to avoid regulation by State laws. Each organization and its extensive involvement in advocacy to pierce these ruses and to protect borrowers from fringe lenders is described in detail in the Motion for Leave to File Brief Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents/Cross-Petitioners with which this brief is conditionally filed.
 

April 21, 2010 | Filed under: Other Areas of Interest | Tagged with: Consumer Loans, Predatory Lending
Court:
Supreme Court of Virginia

Pursuant to Rule 5:30 of the Rules of the Virginia Supreme Court and with the approval of this Court, the National Association of Consumer Advocates (NACA) and the Virginia Poverty Law Center (VPLC) as amici curiae support the Petition for Appeal by Wilma L. Ruby (Ms. Ruby). Amici requests that the Supreme Court of Virginia grant Ms. Ruby an appeal of the final Order of the Circuit Court of the County of Shenandoah dated December 22, 2009, regarding her claims against Cashnet, Inc., (Cashnet).
 

January 16, 2008 | Filed under: Other Areas of Interest | Tagged with: Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices
Court:
Massachusetts Supreme Court

This brief of amici curiae in support of the Iannacchino plaintiffs-appellants is collectively submitted by seven public interest organizations including NACA.
 

October 1, 2006 | Filed under: Other Areas of Interest | Tagged with: False Advertising
Court:
US Supreme Court

Brief by NACA and other consumer organizations stating that the Illinois Supreme Court erred in concluding that FTC consent orders constitute federal authorization to engage in deceptive advertising, and that if left uncorrected, the Illinois Supreme Court decision will dramatically hinder state and federal efforts to regulate deceptive trade practices. October 2006.
 

May 12, 2006 | Filed under: Other Areas of Interest | Tagged with: Federal Communications Act
Court:
US Supreme Court

NACA brief written to express the following: that the need for state wireless consumer protection laws has grown with the wireless industry, a growth that has been accompanied by widespread unfair, misleading and deceptive business practices. States must protect wireless consumers because the FCC does not. Therefore, the Eighth Circuit's decision harms millions of consumers nationwide.
 

Pages