In The Courtroom

Transamerica Increasing Charges On Life Insurance Policies By 40%, Jeopardizing Coverage After Decades Of Payments, Lawsuit Says Betrayal Of The Baby Boomers

March 22, 2016  ·  Harvey Rosenfield

Santa Monica, CA — Consumers who bought life insurance protection from Transamerica Insurance Company decades ago are now facing a choice between paying enormous increases...

KGO ABC TV-7 San Francisco, CA – Is TransAmerica Running A Pyramid Scheme On Its Policyholders?

March 21, 2016  ·  ConsumerWatchdog

<p>Consumer Watchdog has filed a lawsuit against TransAmerica for unreasonably raising life insurance premiums on policyholders.  Consumers who depend on these policies were sold a phony bag of goods, but in this case it was supposed to protect their lives and families. For more information on this case, go to <a href="http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/case/transamerica-life-illegally-hikes-cost-insurance-charges">http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/case/transamerica-life-illegally-hikes-cost-insurance-charges</a></p> <p> </p> <p> </p>

Transamerica Life Illegally Hikes “Cost of Insurance” Charges

March 21, 2016  ·  Harvey Rosenfield

Feller et al v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company, United States District Court, Central District of California (Case 2:16-cv-01378) Consumers who bought life insurance protection from Transamerica Insurance...

Fighting Unfair DirecTV Cancellation Policies – Imburgia and Greiner v. DIRECTV

February 26, 2016  ·  Harvey Rosenfield

Imburgia and Greiner v. DIRECTV Los Angeles Superior Court No. BC 398295 Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, No. B239361 During 2008, Consumer Watchdog received...

Aetna and Coventry Discriminate Against HIV/AIDS Patients in Violation of the Affordable Care Act

February 26, 2016  ·  Jerry Flanagan

Aetna, Inc., and its subsidiary Coventry Health Care Inc., are attempting to circumvent the central reform of the Affordable Care Act—the so called “guaranteed issue”...

Supreme Court’s Arbitration Ruling Is Another Blow To Consumer Rights

December 18, 2015  ·  Mark Reback

<p>The <a href="http://www.latimes.com/topic/crime-law-justice/justice-system/u.s.-supreme-court-ORGOV0000126-topic.html" title="U.S. Supreme Court">U.S. Supreme Court</a> made clear this week that, regardless of what the Constitution says about a consumer's right to sue, businesses are absolutely entitled to block people from banding together and taking a dispute to court.</p>

U.S. SC Rejects Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against DirecTV

December 15, 2015  ·  Mark Reback

<p>WASHINGTON (Legal Newsline) - On Monday, a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a California court must enforce DirecTV's arbitration agreement with customers in the state who claim they were illegally charged cancellation fees.</p> <p>The nation's highest court, in a 6-3 ruling, sided with the satellite cable provider, which is now owned by AT&T.</p> <p>Justice Stephen Breyer, who authored the majority decision, said the Federal Arbitration Act preempts the California Court of Appeal's interpretation of the company's contract.</p>

Supreme Court’s DirecTV Ruling Faces Criticism for Creep Into State Court Proceedings

December 15, 2015  ·  Mark Reback

<p>The Supreme Court's ruling for DirecTV on binding arbitration language in customers' service agreements has little applicability in the real world, "but the consequences are profound" since it marks a landmark reversal of a state court decision on arbitration, on the grounds a state court misapplied state contract law, said Harvey Rosenfield, a founder of Consumer Watchdog.</p>

Supreme Court: Binding Arbitration Clauses In Consumer Contracts Trump California Law

December 14, 2015  ·  Mark Reback

<p>California consumers who are angry about being hit with unexpected fees can be forced to air their complaints individually before an arbitrator rather than in a class-action lawsuit, under a decision handed down Monday by the U.S. Supreme Court.</p> <p>The justices by a 6-3 vote overturned a state ruling and threw out a class-action lawsuit against DirecTV over its termination fees for customers who canceled its service.</p>

U.S. Supreme Court Forces DIRECTV Customers Out Of Court, Into Private Arbitration Over Illegal $480 Early Cancellation Fees

December 14, 2015  ·  Harvey Rosenfield

In the latest of a series of decisions closing the courthouse doors on consumers, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this morning, 6 to 3, that DIRECTV customers in California who were illegally charged “cancellation fees” of up to $480 – often taken directly out of a consumer’s bank account or charged to a credit card without the customer’s permission

High Court Says DirecTV Can Cut Off Class Action Lawsuit

December 14, 2015  ·  Mark Reback

<p>WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that satellite provider DirecTV can avoid a class action lawsuit in California over early termination fees and force customers into private arbitration hearings instead.</p> <p><br /> In a 6-3 opinion, the justices said that DirecTV's contracts can specifically prohibit customers from banding together to sue the company, even though California state law would allow such class action lawsuits to go forward.</p>

Supreme Court Halts Class-Action Suit Against DirecTV Over Fees

December 14, 2015  ·  Mark Reback

<article itemprop="articleBody"> <p>The Supreme Court said Monday that a class-action suit against satellite TV provider ­DirecTV over early-termination fees cannot go forward, because such complaints must be settled by private arbitration hearings.</p> <p>The court <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-462_2co3.pdf">ruled 6 to 3</a> that its previous decisions on the subject mean that California consumers may not rely on a state law that would have allowed consumers the right to band together to sue.</p>