Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share 39. Consumer Cases – False Advertising; Debt Fairness Act; Lemon Laws; The Privacy Act
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
39. Consumer Cases – False Advertising; Debt Fairness Act; Lemon Laws; The Privacy Act
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.
View all episodes
By civilaction
4.9
1818 ratings
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.