Seyfarth attorneys Robert Milligan and Joshua Salinas recently published an article titled “Avoiding California’s Consumer Law Pitfalls Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic” for Law.com.
COVID-19 has created unprecedented challenges, including in the area of consumer class action law. This article discusses the new traps and areas of uncertainty the pandemic has caused for businesses navigating California
On March 4, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom declared a state of emergency in response to 
the COVID-19 public health emergency. Price gouging is illegal in all California communities during the declared state of emergency.
Executive Order N-44-20 makes it unlawful to increase the price of food items, consumer goods, or medical and emergency supplies
Confusion and uncertainty abound in the business world, with many business owners unable to meet a variety of contractual obligations as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and related government shut downs, employee limitations, and supply chain disruptions. Naturally this never-before-seen set of circumstances are leading to questions from both sides of the contract around
On Wednesday, August 7, 2019, at 12 p.m. CT, Seyfarth attorneys will review the latest consumer class action law developments affecting companies that do business in California. It is no secret that resourceful plaintiff’s attorneys target companies conducting business in California with expensive and time-consuming putative class actions alleging violations of federal or state consumer
Seyfarth Synopsis: On June 5, 2019, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion in NEI Contr. & Eng’g, Inc. v. Hanson Aggregates Pac. Sw., Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 16885 (9th Cir. June 5, 2019), upholding the district court’s decertification of a class whose class representative lacked standing on its individual claims.
NEI Contracting and Engineering, Inc. (“NEI”) sought to bring a class action based on allegations that Hanson Aggregates, Inc. (“Hanson”) violated California Civil Code section 632.7 for recording phone calls without the consent of the individuals placing the calls. The district court, after initial certification, decertified the class, observing that the individualized inquiries required to determine if each class member consented to the recording would predominate over questions of fact common to all class members. The court also found that NEI did not have standing to bring its individual claims.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Upholds Decertification of Class in Unauthorized Customer Call Recording Suit Where the Class Representative Did Not Have Standing
After recently hearing oral argument in Lamps Plus Inc. v. Varela, the United States Supreme Court is set to decide whether the Federal Arbitration Act forecloses a state-law interpretation of an arbitration agreement that would result in permitting class arbitration. Arbitration is a function of contract, and therefore parties may agree to aggregated arbitrations in
2018 Amendment to California’s Auto-Renewal Law Adds New Requirements For Promotional Offers and Cancellation Mechanisms
Often cited as one of the most aggressive efforts to curb automatically recurring charges to consumers, California’s Auto-Renewal Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17600 et seq.) has become a popular tool for both plaintiff’s lawyers and government regulators. The California Auto-Renewal Law (“ARL”) applies, with limited exceptions, to any arrangement in which a paid subscription or purchase agreement is automatically renewed until the consumer cancels.
Continue Reading Subscription Services, Beware
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its highly-anticipated opinion in DirecTV, Inc. v. Imburgia et al., 577 U.S. ___ (2015), which reaffirmed its ruling in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 56 U.S. 333 (2011), dealing yet another blow to California Courts’ attempts to invalidate class action waivers.
Background
The plaintiffs in Imburgia
By: Robert Milligan and D. Joshua Salinas
California’s Auto-Renewal Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17600 et seq.) has given rise to a recent torrent of new lawsuits in California, many brought on a putative class action basis, targeting businesses that offer subscription based goods or services to California consumers. With few published
On September 1, 2015, California enacted Senate Bill 633 (“SB 633”), loosening the state’s restrictions on “Made in USA” labeling. Under existing law, codified at Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17533.7, a product may not be sold or offered for sale in California as “Made in U.S.A” if the product, or any article, unit,