The Truth in Lending Act (TILA) is intended to benefit the economy and consumers by promoting the informed use of credit. The deceptive sales techniques used by Koons against Mr. Nigh are recurring practices for businesses who refuse to compete openly and fairly in the marketplace. This Amicus Brief was written by Richard J. Rubin, Carolyn L. Carter, Joanne S. Faulkner, Thomas Dean Domonoske.
"The fringe banking industry exploits vulnerable consumers who must rely on state regulation. Lenders relationships with out-of-state banks are just the latest in a history of attempts to evade interests caps.” This Amicus Brief was written by Deborah Zuckerman and Michael Schuster of AARP Foundation, Gary Leshaw and Leigh Altman of Gary Leshaw and Associates, and Ashley Carraway of Atlanta Legal Aid Society.
“The imposition of unreasonable costs renders an arbitration clause unenforceable.” This Amicus Brief was written by Deborah Zuckerman and Michael Schuster of AARP Foundation, and Nancy Barron of Kenmitzer, Anderson, Barron and Ogilvie.
Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Philip Morris, Inc. A misrepresentation or deceptive act can cause harm to consumers as contemplated by the private Attorney General Statute, despite the presence of written disclaimers.
Nike, Inc., et al., v. Marc Kasky, Case # 02-575 in the Supreme Court of the United States, on Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of California. California's broad standing provision for consumer protection actions is not facially unconstitutional, and the California Court properly found that at least some of Nike's statements were "commercial speech."
In the matter of Case #02-1432 in the Supreme Court of the United States, Daniel Heimmermann and Emily Heimmermann v. First Union Mortgage Corp., and Beth A. Richardson, and Pamela C. Hirsch and David L. Hirsch v. BankAmerica Corporation, A Delaware Corporation, Bank of America FSB, A Hawaii Corporation, BankAmerica Mortgage, A Division of BankAmerica FSB, A Hawaii Corporation.
NACA filed this amicus brief in the Supreme Court of the United States, supporting Marc Kasky's 1998 filing alleging that petitioner Nike, Inc. made false or misleading assertions of fact concerning the working conditions in overseas facilities where Nike's products are manufactured.
Amicus Curiae Brief Requesting a Republish of Connor vs First Student.
This Court should overturn the “public benefit” restriction created in Ly v. Nystrom, 615 N.W.2d 302 (Minn. 2000). That decision required private plaintiffs to demonstrate that the alleged deceptive conduct was broadly disseminated and required dismissal of statutory fraud violations that arise solely in a “one-on-one transaction.” Id. at 314. The public benefit restriction has effectively ended private actions under statutory fraud laws for individuals, farmers and other small business purchasers subject to marketplace deception.