Yesterday, a deadlocked U.S. Supreme Court stymied the White House’s hopes to enact large-scale immigration reforms that would have allowed millions of immigrants to remain in the country. While this lack of a decision doesn’t necessarily mean the end of the program, it will inevitably create confusion for those directly affected by the case, while fostering a breeding ground for fraudsters seeking to take advantage of immigrants uncertain of their status. [More]
The highest court in New Jersey has ruled that a lawsuit filed by former students against for-profit educator Sanford Brown Institute can move forward, even though the school’s enrollment agreement has an arbitration clause that takes away students’ right to file such lawsuits. [More]
The metaphorical ink on today’s mammoth 184-page ruling upholding net neutrality was barely even dry before everyone with a stake in the matter came out swinging with statements. And while the decision earned praise from consumer advocates and some lawmakers, the telecom industry has vowed to continue the fight.
A high-profile Supreme Court case involving mandatory membership fees paid to public employee unions was expected to result in yet another controversial, narrow 5-4 decision by the nation’s highest court, but today, with only eight justices currently seated, an evenly divided SCOTUS issued a one-sentence non-decision that leaves things unchanged. [More]
Nearly three years after Apple was found liable for conspiring with book publishers to fix prices on the e-book market — and nine months after losing again at the appeals court level — the electronics giant has failed to convince the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its case one final time, meaning Apple is now on the hook for $450 million to e-book buyers. [More]
2 Live Crew may be best known for its raunchy 1989 hit “Me So Horny” and the group’s public spats with family values groups and censors, but 22 years ago today, Luther “Luke Skywalker” Campbell and the Crew scored an important victory before the U.S. Supreme Court in a ruling that affirmed that parody constitutes a protected “fair use” of copyrighted material. [More]
Over the past several years, companies have come under scrutiny for a variety of practices that some see as wage theft, including not providing reimbursement for uniforms, requiring some work to be performed off the clocks, and mandating employees clock out for a break even if they don’t take one. Today, Wisconsin’s highest court found that Hormel Foods owes hundreds of workers back wages for failing to provide compensation for the time spent putting on and taking off required clothing and equipment. [More]
In recent years, a narrow majority of the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly sided against consumers’ access to the justice system, concluding that a 90-year-old law gives companies the authority to effectively skirt the legal system by preempting customers’ lawsuits. That’s why some legislators have decided it’s time to change that law. [More]
For the third time in five years, the U.S. Supreme Court had a chance to reverse a terrifying trend in consumer rights by doing something, anything, to rein in “forced arbitration” clauses that strip consumers of their legal rights and effectively give companies a license to steal. And for the third time in five years, the SCOTUS majority showed its interests lie in protecting the coffers of big business rather than Americans’ access to the legal system. [More]
Consumerist’s first post on the subject of arbitration, back in 2007, described a dispute that was ultimately resolved in the consumer’s favor. Since then, we’ve been against the practice, pointing out when popular companies change their terms of service to add arbitration clauses. It doesn’t matter, though, because arbitration can save companies so much money that they don’t especially care what we think. Sometimes. [More]
Professional sports teams relocate all the time — just ask the NFL’s Oakland Raiders, who moved moved to L.A. and then back home again in a little more than a decade (and who are among the lead prospects to fill the pro football void in L.A.). So it would seem no big deal for the Oakland A’s to only move about 50 miles away to San Jose, right? Not quite. [More]
Three months after a federal appeals court upheld a 2013 decision that found Apple liable for conspiring with publisher to raise the price of e-books, the company is taking the fight to clear its name to the country’s highest legal authority: the Supreme Court. [More]
While most things about marriage have changed throughout human history, one thing remains true. No, not love: marriage for love is a modern innovation. Married couples have always been an economic unit, from ancient farms to modern condos. This morning’s Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriages nationwide will have important effects on the finances of married gay and lesbian couples, whether they live in a state that currently allows them to legally marry or not. [More]
Consumers taking out a second mortgage will now have to consider the fact that if they encounter financial difficulties and file for bankruptcy, they won’t be able to strip off the additional loan obligation. [More]
Back in February, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of a 17-year-old who applied to work for the children’s clothing store under the Abercrombie & Fitch brand. She was apparently beautiful enough to work there, but always wore a black scarf on her head. Did she wear it for religious reasons, which would mean that it couldn’t be a factor in hiring decisions? She didn’t say, so Abercrombie didn’t hire her. That case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which issued an opinion today. [More]
Lots of people have ill-will and mountains of unflattering things to say about their exes. Many of those people say those things online. But if your rant happens to be filled with violent language that makes your former partner afraid for their safety, even if you say you had no intention of ever following through, is it still a real threat?
There’s a true 21st-century case a-brewing at the Supreme Court, one of those unsexy legal questions with enormous potential repercussions. At heart of the matter is personal data. There’s an insane amount of it out there, on each and every one of us, and it’s all for trade, barter, and sale. But that doesn’t mean it’s all correct or true. So if some website or service goes around saying you’re someone you’re not, do you have the right to sue?