Greenberg Traurig’s Consumer Compass newsletter is your guide to navigating the legal landscape of the ever-evolving consumer products industry. Each issue delivers the latest news, emerging trends, and must-know highlights, along with savvy insights designed to keep you ahead of the curve.
Continue Reading Consumer Compass: Navigating the Consumer Products Legal Landscape | Mid-Year 2025
Historically, plaintiffs seeking monetary damages and wishing to pursue their case as a class action have sought certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), but this has become increasingly difficult. In recent years, there has therefore been a rise in the invocation of Rule 23(c)(4) at the class certification stage, often as an alternative
Greenberg Traurig Shareholder Brett M. Doran authored an article published in DRI titled “Standing and the Right to Sue Under Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act.” The article examines Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) class actions and how courts have treated challenges to plaintiffs’ standing or right to sue. Click here to read the full
The Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act (Chapter 93A) protects consumers against unfair or deceptive business practices and allows consumers, under certain circumstances, to bring class actions against businesses to stop such practices and seek damages. Generally, unless a business responds to a presuit demand letter with a reasonable settlement tender, violation of Chapter 93A requires payment
Plaintiffs in consumer data breach class actions have struggled to establish Article III standing. Article III standing requires an alleged ‘‘concrete and particularized injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct, and is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.’’ In Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138 (2013)
On March 14, 2016, Ageas (formerly, Fortis Bank) and several foundations representing the Fortis shareholders announced a EUR 1.204 billion settlement of shareholder claims and they are now seeking to declare the settlement legally binding on all shareholders under the 2005 Dutch Act on Collective Settlement of Mass Claims (the WCAM).[1] Recently, the settlement was
In a ruling yesterday in Felix v. Ganley Chevrolet, Inc., No. 2013-1746, 2015 WL 5039233 (Aug. 27, 2015), the Ohio Supreme Court held that a class action cannot be certified where the plaintiff cannot demonstrate, through common evidence, that all putative class members incurred damages resulting from the defendant’s alleged conduct. For claims under Ohio’s Consumer Sales Practice Act (OCSPA), this requires demonstrating that all class members suffered actual damages.
The lawsuit involved allegations that the defendant, a car dealership, violated the OCSPA by requiring purchasers of vehicles to agree to an unenforceable arbitration provision. Plaintiffs alleged they incurred actual damages following a dispute with the defendant. Plaintiffs sought unspecified “monetary damages … where appropriate” for the class, but did not seek actual damages for class members. The trial court certified the proposed class under Ohio’s Civil Rule 23(B)(2) and (B)(3) (which are substantially similar to FRCP Rules 23(B)(2)( and (B)(3)), and awarded $200 per transaction to each class member based, not on any actual damages, but rather on the trial court’s “discretion.”
Continue Reading Ohio Supreme Court Rules Class Cannot be Certified Without Actual Damages Under Ohio’s Consumer Sales Practice Act