))
39. Consumer Cases – False Advertising; Debt Fairness Act; Lemon Laws; The Privacy Act
Manage episode 305526259 series 2999236
Content provided by civilaction. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by civilaction or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://ro.player.fm/legal.
Becerra v. Dr. Pepper
Brian and Shant discuss the use of the word “diet” and whether it misled consumers to believe that diet soda would likely promote weight loss. Multiple dictionaries were used to understand what the word “diet’ is meant to convey, but the determination is based on the reasonable consumer test.
Stimpson v. Midland Credit Management
Brian and Shant discuss defaulted payment to a creditor. The debt went into collections and the resulting action analyzed the statute of limitations of a debt in credit report. A time-barred debt although not actionable in court, is not discharged.
Patel v. Mercedes Benz USA
Brian and Shant discuss the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. The trial court discovered that the named plaintiff was not making the payments but rather another party. Attorney fees were recoverable although the prevailing party was not the named party to the action.
Smith v. LoanMe, Inc
Brian and Shant discuss the legality of recorded telephone calls with business entities. The CA Privacy Act, Section 632.7 specifically does not allow the recording of a phone call without consent. What’s perplexing is that the legislative intent seems to imply that the Act was implemented to require consent of all parties and prevent eavesdropping.
98 episoade
Distribuie
