Amicus Brief in Support of Plantiff in English vs. Trump & Mulvaney
Amicus Brief in Support of Plaintiff-Appellant in Eileen Connor v. First Student Inc, et al
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.
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.
Amicus Curiae Brief Expressions Hair Design v. Eric Schneiderman
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.
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).
This brief of amici curiae in support of the Iannacchino plaintiffs-appellants is collectively submitted by seven public interest organizations including NACA.
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.
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.