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]
supreme court
12 Things We Learned From The New York Times’ Investigative Report On Arbitration
By 11.2.15
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]
Supreme Court Shuts Down Attempt To Move Oakland A’s To San Jose
By 10.5.15
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]
Apple Asks Supreme Court To Hear Appeal Of E-Book Price-Fixing Case
By 9.18.15
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]
SCOTUS Decision: The Financial Benefits For Married Same-Sex Couples
By 6.26.15
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 Can’t Void Second Mortgage In Bankruptcy, SCOTUS Rules
By 6.1.15
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]
Supreme Court: Job Applicants Don’t Have To Explain That Their Garb Is Religious
By 6.1.15
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]
Supreme Court Rules That You Have To Intend A Threat For It To Be A Real Threat
By 6.1.15
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? [More]
Supreme Court To Decide If You Can Sue When Data Aggregators Are Wrong
By 4.27.15
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?
[More]
How Baseball Became America’s Favorite Monopoly
By 3.30.15 — Updated: 5.2.17
In theory, spring has finally sprung. But forget crocuses and breathably warm air; the real sign of seasonal change is baseball, America’s favorite monopoly. Major League Baseball has the dubious distinction not only of being entirely exempt from antitrust law, but also being the only major league sport with such a privilege. With the start of the 2015 season still some days away, we have time to take a look at the history, and the possible future, of this quirk. [More]
The Nation’s Biggest Companies Agree: Gay Marriage Is Good For Business
By 3.5.15
Next month, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments with regard to the legality of state laws that prohibit same-sex marriages. And while the issue has been politically divisive, many of the nation’s most powerful corporations — from airlines to insurance to beer to baseball teams — agree that banning gay marriage is not good for business. [More]
Abercrombie & Fitch Lawsuit That Isn’t Really About Hijabs Presented To Supreme Court
By 2.26.15
Five years ago, a teen applied for a job at a store selling clothes for a children’s clothing store that is part of the Abercrombie & Fitch brand. She wore a hijab, a headcovering that many female Muslims wear, and said that she would continue to wear it to work. This week, her case is before the U.S. Supreme Court, asking an odd question: does a job applicant need to specify that they’re wearing a religious garment or accessory for religious reasons? [More]
Supreme Court Rules Homeowners Don’t Have To Sue Lenders To Rescind Mortgage Under Truth In Lending Act
By 1.13.15
A ruling by the Supreme Court on Tuesday made it a little easier for consumers to back out of mortgages under the Truth In Lending Act when lenders fail to disclose full terms of the deal. [More]
State Laws May Help Workers Get Paid While Waiting For Security Checks
By 1.7.15
A recent Supreme Court decision settled the question of whether workers should be paid for the time they spend having their belongings checked by security on the way out of work. The Supremes said “no,” but there may be room in state laws for retail and warehouse workers to be compensated for the time they spend waiting and being searched. [More]
Should Amazon Warehouse Workers Be Paid To Wait For Security Checks?
By 10.3.14
It makes sense that people who work in Amazon warehouses have to go through security screenings when they leave work: the job is not very well paid and consists of boxing up an unfathomable variety of items at a fast pace. The Supreme Court will decide whether the workers’ employer––temp agencies that supply the warehouse workforce––should pay them for time waiting in line for screenings. [More]
Supreme Court Will Hear Case Of Abercrombie Job Applicant Denied Because Of Hijab
By 10.2.14
Back in 2008, a 17-year-old in Oklahoma applied for a job at a local Abercrombie Kids store. She made the cut, but learned that the store’s “look policy” wouldn’t allow her to wear a religious head covering. Just over a year ago, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission won the right for employees to wear religious head coverings while they battle the cologne stench at Abercrombie, but the headscarf itself isn’t what this case is about. [More]
Can Anything Be Done To Make Aereo Legal Again?
By 7.1.14
Content streaming company Aereo “paused” all operations this past Saturday, after losing their case in the Supreme Court last week. Today, the company’s CEO, Chet Kanojia, sent an e-mail to subscribers asking for their support and entreating them to “make [their] voices heard” with lawmakers in order to bring Aereo back. But he didn’t say what, specifically, loyal customers should ask their lawmakers to do. So in the wake of last week’s ruling, what law would have to change in order to make Aereo legal? [More]
What Does The Hobby Lobby Ruling Mean For Consumers?
By 6.30.14
This morning, the Supreme Court issued its ruling on one of the most-watched cases of the season, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. The issue was employer-provided healthcare, and what companies are required to provide under the Affordable Care Act. But the broader issues brought up by the ruling have implications beyond one craft store’s benefits package. [More]
