Online Advertising Goliath

online advertising goliath

PLz tell me some interesting cases decided under consumer protection act.(minimum 10 cases).?

Cases must be related to consumers exploitation.

COURT CASES RELATING TO CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

Federal court rules Telephone Consumer Protection Act does not apply to commercial SMS text messages sent to cellular phones. The ruling came a few weeks ago in Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, No. C 06-2893 CW, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46325 (N.D. Cal. June 26, 2007), a case involving the transmission of an SMS text message promoting a popular author’s “mobile club” to a cellular phone used by a seven-year-old child. The defendants, the publishing company that contracted for the transmission of the promotional messages and the service provider that actually sent the messages, argued that the subscriber, the child’s mother, had consented to the transmission of promotional messages when, in order to receive a free ringtone, she checked the box in an online form labeled “Yes! I would like to receive promotions from Nextones affiliates and brands….”
http://brownraysman.typepad.com/technology_law_update/2007/07/federal-court-r.html
——————————————————————-
A patient has the right to sue her doctor for deceptive acts and practices in treatment under the state consumer protection act, the Kansas Supreme Court has ruled. (Williamson v. Amrani, 2007 WL 419698 (Kan. Feb. 9, 2007).)
Tracy Williamson said her doctor, Jacob Amrani, recommended back surgery and told her it would relieve her pain, when in fact the procedure had been unsuccessful in most of Amrani’s cases. Williamson sued him for engaging in deceptive acts and practices and violating the Kansas Consumer Protection Act (KCPA) by representing that the surgery would have benefits that it did not have. (read case on link)
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-6455847_ITM
———————————————————————-
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
An infamous cybersquatter named John Zuccarini lost an ACPA lawsuit in October of 2000, when the court awarded the plaintiff statutory damages of $500,000 for each of five domain names that were obtained in bad faith and that were confusingly similar to the plaintiff’s trademark. The court also ordered Mr. Zuccarini to pay attorneys’ fees of more than $30,000.
http://tcattorney.typepad.com/domainnamedispute/2004/12/the_anticybersq.html
——————————————————————-
D.C. Consumer Protection Act–There for the little guy
Mr. Ford hired a lawyer to pursue a “personal injury” claim on his behalf. His attorney requested medical records from Washington Hospital Center and a received a bill from Chart One. Chart One is a company that medical providers contract with to provide their medical records. Chart One had the nerve to charge Mr. Ford’s attorney $38.16 for just six pages of medical records. (read rest on link)
http://washingtondc.injuryboard.com/automobile-accidents/dc-consumer-protection-act-there-for-the-little-guy.aspx?googleid=207334
———————————————————————
Spam to Cell Phone Violates Telephone Consumer Protection Act
Spam from a mortgage company sent to a cell phone is a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), the Arizona Court of Appeals found. Rodney L. Joffee received a text message on his cell phone from Acacia Mortgage Corporation advertising low home mortgage rates. He sued Acacia arguing that the message violated the TCPA’s prohibition against using any automatic dialing system to make any call to any telephone number assigned to a . . . cellular telephone service.
http://www.balough.com/news/9222005172416.asp
————————————————————————
Court remands case involving state’s consumer protection act
Patterson Pest and Weed Control performed a termite inspection for the Bealls. Patterson billed Bernice $105. She refused to pay the bill, claiming she never asked Patterson for an inspection, only a free estimate. Patterson then filed a $105 lien against the Beall’s property. About the same time, Bernice asserted she had performed a real estate appraisal for him, demanded payment of $115 for the appraisal and attempted to file a $115 lien against his property. Patterson then sued her for $4,500 in the small claims division — for breach of contract ($105) and for alleged violations of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act. She filed counterclaims against him for $4,500 — for breach of contract ($115), for alleged violations of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act, for specific performance and to quiet title. Beall eventually paid Patterson $105. Beall also voluntarily dismissed her Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act counterclaim against Patterson. The trial court then permitted both parties to file summary judgment motions.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_20001116/ai_n10141015
————————————————————————–
Barbara’s Sales Inc., et al. v. Intel Corp.
Circuit Court of Madison County (Illinois), Illinois Supreme Court
Defended Intel against allegations that it misrepresented performance capabilities of early Pentium® 4 processors. The plaintiffs sought to pursue a nationwide class action in Madison County, Illinois, but under California’s deceptive trade practices statutes. On appeal, the Illinois Supreme Court held that Illinois law rather than California law applied, that the alleged misrepresentations were mere “puffing” and therefore not actionable under Illinois law, and that the case should not proceed as a class action. 2007 WL 4200855 (Ill. 2007)
http://www.perkinscoie.com/services/Services_Detail.aspx?service=4c9fcded-ba53-4ad9-8efd-4dcd863f71c2&op=experience
——————————————————————————-
Among the controversial rulings by the Michigan Supreme Court in the last decade, the most notorious may be Smith v. Globe Life Insurance Co. 460 Mich 446; 597 NW2d 28 (1999). The Court’s decision in Globe Life largely gutted our Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) by immunizing most licensed businesses against claims of unfair dealing.
http://www.courthouseforum.com/forums/thread.php?id=1041023


 Mail this postStumbleUpon It!

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Tags: , , , ,

Leave a Reply