The National Association of Consumer Advocates Litigation Project supports and enhances consumer protection through both our direct engagement in significant litigation as co-counsel and as a plaintiff, and by providing amicus assistance to consumer attorneys in important cases in federal and state courts.
If you might be interested in co-counseling with NACA’s Litigation Project or have our organization serve as a plaintiff in a representative action in a case that could advance the cause of consumer justice and/or the legal rights and interests of consumers, please contact our Litigation Director Eric Zell: [email protected] - 202-452-1989 x. 111.
If you’re looking for amicus assistance, please just complete this form.
Our Cases:
NACA v. Gemini Trust Company LLC, D.C. Superior Court, Case No. 2024-CAB-003999
What this case is about: Our complaint asserts that Gemini’s (a cryptocurrency exchange) user agreement includes terms that violate the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and is therefore unfair and deceptive under D.C.’s Consumer Protection statute (CPPA). NACA is the plaintiff in this representative action that otherwise could not have been easily brought because of Gemini’s forced arbitration clause.
NACA v. RentGrow, Inc. and Yardi Systems, Inc., D.C. Superior Court, Case No. 2024-CAB-006253
What this case is about: Our complaint asserts that RentGrow’s tenant screening procedures used by DC landlords results in a significant number of erroneous reports and then the wrongful denial of essential housing to consumers. In particular, the complaint alleges that RentGrow’s use of Artificial Intelligence and Automated Decision Making without the necessary protocols to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of its reports violates the Fair Credit reporting Act and is therefore an unfair and deceptive practice under the CPPA.
Nodal v. Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, N.H. Rockingham County Superior Court Case No. 218-2025-CV-00535
What this case is about: The class action complaint asserts that Bluegreen’s timeshare agreements violate the Military Lending Act (MLA) because they fail to comply with the statute’s disclosure requirements and unlawfully include a forced arbitration agreement. These MLA violations make the underlying timeshare agreements void as a matter of law.
Parisi v. Oklahoma Windows and Doors LLC/Greensky LLC, W.D. Oklahoma Case No. 5:23-cv-00115
What this case is about: This class action complaint asserts hat defendants are engaged in a bait and switch scheme that prevents customers from seeing the true costs (and disclosures) of a loan to finance home improvement projects. Greensky’s business model authorizes home contractors to act on Greensky’s behalf in entering into agreements with consumers without providing the final contract terms and then accepting the terms of the contract on behalf of the consumer (by withdrawing loan funds without consumer consent or knowledge). Claims in the proposed amended complaint include violations of Oklahoma’s Consumer Credit Code and Consumer Protection Act, Truth in Lending Act, and EFTA.
Strange v. Capital One, Maryland Case No. 8:25-cv-02711
What this case is about: This class action case is against Capital One for violation of Virginia’s usury statute which limits interest to 6% (unless otherwise permitted by contract). The complaint alleges that Capital One’s consumer contract permitting a higher interest rate is illusory because it allows the company to unilaterally change the contract terms. With no enforceable contract, Capital One is limited to charging a 6% interest rate. The Amended Complaint alleges violations of the National Bank Act.
Blackmon v. Titlemax, N.D. Georgia Case No. 4:24-cv-00049
What this case is about: Following Titlemax’s noncompliance with its consent order with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the class action complaint asserts that the terms of company consumer loan products violate the Military Lending Act.
