Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert

Tagged: Consumer Fraud

Negotiated Sale of Customized Computer to Sophisticated Business Is Not a Sale of “Merchandise” Within the Meaning of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act

by

Posted in General Litigation

On November 15, 2011

New Jersey courts have long held that businesses may assert claims under New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act (“CFA”) in appropriate circumstances. See Hundred E. Credit Corp. v. Schuster. Whether a business is entitled to assert a CFA claim typically turns on the specific facts of the case and whether the transaction at issue constitutes a “sale of merchandise” within the meaning of the CFA. See N.J.S.A. § 56:8-2. In Princeton Healthcare System v. Netsmart New York, Inc., the Appellate Division confronted this precise issue in holding that Princeton Healthcare, a sophisticated business entity, was not entitled to assert a CFA claim against Netsmart arising out of the sale and implementation of a customized computer system.

Fee Awards Under New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act Permitted Despite Failure to Show Ascertainable Loss at Trial

by

Posted in General Litigation

On November 8, 2011

Defense attorneys, beware: your client’s technical violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act may result in its having to pay the plaintiff’s lofty legal bill despite the plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate any injury. The New Jersey Appellate Division recently held that plaintiffs who show a technical violation of the NJCFA but fall short of demonstrating an ascertainable loss at trial may still be entitled to counsel fees.

Ninth Circuit Rules that Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act Prohibits Mandatory Arbitration in Warranties, Creating a Circuit Split

by

Posted in General Litigation

On November 1, 2011

The Ninth Circuit in Kolev v. EuroMotors West/The Auto Gallery held that The Magnuson Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”) “precludes enforcement of pre-dispute agreements . . . that require mandatory binding arbitration of consumer warranty claims.” The Ninth Circuit’s ruling would essentially prohibit manufacturers and distributors of consumer products from attempting to take advantage of the Supreme Court’s recent pro-arbitration rulings, including AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, involving MMWA consumer warranty claims. Thus, to the extent the MMWA precludes arbitration clauses, class waivers in such clauses, which Concepcion rendered immune from invalidation under state laws, would thus likewise be unenforceable in MMWA actions, providing a complete end-run around Concepcion.

Representations That Product’s Effectiveness is “Clinically Proven,” Though Not “Puffery,” Fail to Support State New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and Implied Warranty Claims

by

Posted in General Litigation

On October 25, 2011

In Lieberson, the District Court for the District of New Jersey held that where a complaint does not allege whether or when the allegedly false advertisements appeared in magazines, and whether or when the plaintiff may have viewed them, they were “patently insufficient” to plead a New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-2, claim and otherwise fail to satisfy Rule 9(b) . The Plaintiff in Lieberson alleged that Johnson & Johnson’s baby wash products falsely stated that they were “clinically proven” to help babies sleep better. The Lieberson court held that to properly plead a New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act claim with the specificity required under Rule 9(b), a plaintiff must identify the origin of the statements and that they were actually viewed by the plaintiff. Notably, however, the Lieberson court declined to conclude that the product label’s statements that the product was “clinically proven” to help babies sleep better was mere non-actionable “puffery.” On the contrary, the court found that “incorporation of the words ‘clinically proven’ . . . a statement that might otherwise be considered puffery, i.e., that the products will help babies sleep, was transformed into something that appears ‘both specific and measurable.’”

No Class Certification in Consumer Fraud Case When Lead Plaintiff Seeks to Recant Critical Allegations in Complaint

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On October 11, 2011

A lead plaintiff in a consumer class action who attempts to recant allegations in her complaint concerning the date she purchased the product at issue places her credibility in issue and, therefore, subjects her claim to unique defenses. Such a plaintiff may not be an adequate class representative under Rule 23(a)(4) and therefore may not be able to certify a class.

Corporate Officers and Employees May Be Liable for Corporation’s Violations of Consumer Fraud Act

by

Posted in General Litigation

On September 19, 2011

In Allen v. V and A Bros., Inc., the New Jersey Supreme Court broke new ground under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (“CFA”) by holding that officers and employees of corporations and other businesses can be personally liable under the CFA for the entity’s CFA violations, even when the violations are regulatory in nature and do not require affirmative actions by the corporation’s agents and employees. Indeed “principals” of a corporation will be “broadly liable” for the corporation’s CFA violations.

Connect:

About Gibbons

With 200 attorneys, Gibbons is a leading law firm in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Washington, DC, and Florida, ranked among the nation’s top 200 by The American Lawyer. More…

Subscribe

Archived Blog Posts

Categories