The Legal Project
Consumer Watchdog’s Legal Project attorneys advocate for consumers’ rights and hold corporations and government officials accountable in federal and state courts and before regulatory agencies.
The Legal Project specializes in highly complex litigation, including class actions in federal and state courts, to address abuses in the marketplace such as illegal overcharges, false advertising, and violation of consumer protection laws.
Landmark victories
Some of our most notable accomplishments, each with its citation.
Blocked rate hikes, 2002–today
$7.35 billion
saved Californians on their auto, homeowners, earthquake, and medical malpractice insurance by successfully blocking insurance rate hike requests by dozens of insurance companies.
-
U.S. Supreme Court
A 2021 U.S. Supreme Court victory against CVS for people living with HIV
A 2021 victory in the Supreme Court of the United States representing plaintiffs living with HIV in a class action suit against CVS for unlawfully putting individuals’ health and privacy at risk, resulting in a loss of meaningful access to their prescription drug benefit. After Consumer Watchdog’s unanimous win in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, CVS petitioned the high court for review. Review was granted and the case was briefed, but CVS unexpectedly dropped the case, leaving the earlier victory intact.
Doe v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. (9th Cir. 2020) 982 F.3d 1204, cert. granted in part, (2021) 141 S. Ct. 2882, and cert. dismissed sub nom. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. v. Doe, One (2021) 142 S. Ct. 480.
Groups Commend CVS’s Withdrawal of U.S. Supreme Court Challenge
-
1,400+ pages
With the Los Angeles Times, we won disclosure of more than 1,400 pages of FBI warrants from the investigation of the L.A. City Attorney’s Office and DWP
Bringing a legal action with co-petitioner The Los Angeles Times that won disclosure of more than 1,400 pages of FBI warrants and related documents that detail the United States Attorney’s Office’s investigation into unethical and illegal activity at the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office and the Department of Water and Power.
In re Application of Consumer Watchdog (C.D. Cal., Apr. 11, 2024, No. 2:24-CV-01650-SB) 2024 WL 2104448.
-
$1,800+ per person
More than $1,800 per class member for people living with HIV whose medical information was unlawfully disclosed
Settling a class action suit on behalf of individuals living with HIV against a public health agency and several health care organizations for unlawful disclosure of patients’ protected medical information, resulting in payments in excess of $1,800 per class member and programmatic relief.
Doe v. Cal. Dept. of Pub. Health (L.A. Cty. Super. Ct., June 24, 2024), No. 20STCV32364.
One of the Largest HIV Privacy Breach Payments Arriving in Mailboxes This Week
-
Zoom
We settled a privacy case alleging Zoom misrepresented how secure its platform was
Settling a privacy case against Zoom alleging the video conferencing platform misrepresented the level of security it offered users.
Consumer Watchdog v. Zoom Video Comms., Inc. (D.D.C. July 30, 2021), No. 20-cv-02526.
-
Anthem Blue Cross
Anthem Blue Cross settled over canceling members’ plans and moving them, without proper notice, into plans with no out-of-network coverage
Settling a class action suit against Anthem Blue Cross for violating state and federal law by canceling consumers’ health insurance plans and automatically enrolling them in plans that eliminated coverage for out-of-network doctors without proper notice.
Simon v. Blue Cross of Cal. (L.A. Cty. Super. Ct. Nov. 2, 2020), No. BC639205.
-
$150 million+
Transamerica had to repay more than $150 million in overcharges after policyholders’ premiums illegally skyrocketed
Settling two cases against Transamerica Life Insurance Company on behalf of policyholders whose premiums had unexpectedly and illegally skyrocketed, requiring the company to repay more than $150 million in overcharges in 2019 and up to $88 million in account value credits in 2020.
Feller v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co. (C.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2019), No. 16-01378, and Thompson v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co. (C.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2020), No. 18-05422.
Transamerica Settles Lawsuit Concerning Increases in “Cost of Insurance” Charges
-
6,000 patients
We settled with CVS after 6,000 Ohio patients’ HIV status showed through a mailing envelope
Settling a case against CVS Healthcare Corporation on behalf of a class of 6,000 patients in Ohio whose HIV status was disclosed when a CVS-contracted company, Fiserv, mailed letters to them with information about a federal program to assist them with HIV-related treatment costs. The letters were mailed in envelopes with clear windows that showed patients’ names, the words “Ohio Department of Health” and the letters HIV, exposing patients’ private medical information to anyone who saw the envelope, in opposition to the standard practice of the Ohio Department of Health of using opaque, non-windowed envelopes when sending out mailings regarding HIV.
Doe One v. CVS Healthcare Corp. (S.D. Ohio, Sept. 27, 2019) No. 2:18-CV-238, 2019 WL 4915471, as amended (S.D. Ohio, Oct. 4, 2019) No. 2:18-CV-238, 2019 WL 4893834.
-
$34.8 million+
Anthem, Blue Shield and Cigna paid more than $34.8 million to settle claims they misrepresented which doctors were “in network”
Settling three class action lawsuits against health insurers over the “narrow network” issue, in which plaintiffs alleged that their insurers had misrepresented which doctors were “in network” under their plans. Under the settlement agreements, Anthem Blue Cross provided $15 million in direct payments to consumers, Blue Shield provided more than $18 million, and Cigna provided more than $1.8 million. The settlement also ensured that all three providers implemented an uncapped claim process.
Anthem Blue Cross Affordable Care Act Cases (L.A. Cty. Super. Ct. Aug. 19, 2016), JCCP No. 4805; Blue Shield of Cal. Affordable Care Act Cases (S.F. Cty. Super. Ct. Mar. 27, 2018), JCCP No. 4800; and Davidson v. Cigna (L.A. Cty. Super. Ct. June 28, 2018), No. BC558566.
Consumer Watchdog Sues Two More Insurers Over Narrow Networks
-
Six insurers
Six settlements let HIV/AIDS patients fill their prescriptions at any network pharmacy, not only by mail order
Settling six class action lawsuits against health insurers for illegally requiring HIV/AIDS patients to purchase their medications from a mail-order pharmacy, threatening their health and privacy. As a result of the settlements, members prescribed HIV/AIDS medications may purchase their medications at any network pharmacy. Members were also allowed to seek reimbursement for out-of-pocket losses resulting from the mail order requirement.
Doe v. Blue Cross of Cal. (S.D. Cty. Super. Ct. June 24, 2016), No. 37-2013-00031442; Doe One v. Unitedhealthcare Ins. Co. (C.D. Cal. July 31, 2014), No. SACV-13-00864, 2014 WL 3865847; Doe v. Cigna Health & Life Ins. Co., (S.D. Fla. Oct. 6, 2015), No. 15-cv-60894; Doe v. Anthem, Inc. (settled informally); Doe v. Coventry Health Care Inc. (S.D. Fla. May 5, 2016), No. 15-CIV-62685; and Doe v. Aetna, Inc. (S.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2016), No. 14CV2986-LAB (DHB), 2016 WL 1028363.
HIV/AIDS Patients May Now Opt Out of United Healthcare Mail-Order Rx
-
$8.3 million
Anthem Blue Cross reimbursed $8.3 million after illegal mid-year changes to deductibles and co-pays
Settling a class action against Anthem Blue Cross for illegally making mid-year changes to annual deductibles, co-pays, and other out-of-pocket costs. As a result of the settlement, Anthem reimbursed consumers for out-of-pocket losses resulting from the mid-year changes totaling $8.3 million. The company also agreed not to make mid-year cost increases in the future.
Taub v. Blue Cross of Cal. (L.A. Cty. Super. Ct. Aug. 20, 2015) No. BC457809.
Anthem Blue Cross to End Mid-Year Policy Changes Under Class Action Settlement
-
The “death spiral”
Anthem Blue Cross settled over its “death spiral” — closing policies and using large rate hikes to push patients into lower-benefit coverage
Settling a class action against Anthem Blue Cross for illegally closing insurance policies and using large rate hikes to force patients into lower-benefit and higher-deductible health coverage—a practice known as the “death spiral.” Relief obtained included a cap on future rate increases and the opportunity for plan members to switch coverage, without medical underwriting, to any open policy regulated by the California Department of Managed Health Care.
Feller v. Blue Cross of Cal. (Ventura Cty. Super. Ct. Aug 26, 2011), No. 56-2010-00368587.
-
$22.5 million
The Auto Club had to pay $22.5 million in refunds to drivers overcharged for not having prior insurance
Settling a class action against the Auto Club requiring the insurer to pay $22.5 million in refunds to policyholders who were overcharged for not having prior insurance, a practice that is prohibited by insurance reform Proposition 103.
Proposition 103 Enf’t Project v. Interins. Exch. of the Auto. Club (L.A. Cty. Super. Ct. 2007), No. BC266218.
-
$27.5 million
A historic $27.5 million fine against Mercury Insurance over illegal broker fees
Securing a historic $27.5 million fine against Mercury Insurance Company in an administrative enforcement action for charging excessive and unfairly discriminatory rates by allowing its agents to charge illegal broker fees at the point of sale.
In the Matter of Mercury Ins. Co. (Cal. Ins. Comm’r, Feb. 6, 2015), No. NC03027545.
-
$1.4M refund + $2M fine
Farmers had to refund $1.4 million in overcharges and pay a $2 million fine over improper homeowners underwriting
Obtaining an order from the Insurance Commissioner approving a settlement agreement requiring Farmers Insurance to refund $1.4 million in premium overcharges and pay a $2 million fine to the State of California for utilizing improper homeowners insurance underwriting practices.
In the Matter of the Rates, Rating Plans, or Rating Systems of Farmers Ins. Exch., Fire Ins. Exch., and Mid-Century Ins. Co. (Cal. Ins. Comm’r, Aug. 8, 2007).
“Use It And Lose It” — Farmers Insurance Refunds $1.4 Million
-
Right to sue
We secured consumers’ right to enforce the Insurance Code in court under the Unfair Competition Law
Securing a consumer’s right to enforce the Insurance Code in court under the state’s Unfair Competition Law in a case against Mercury for illegally surcharging drivers without prior insurance.
Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968.
No victories in that category yet.
Landmark appellate decisions
Consumer Watchdog’s attorneys have taken the lead role — authored comprehensive appellate briefs and participated in oral argument — in numerous landmark cases resulting in published appellate and California Supreme Court opinions upholding consumer protection statutes.
-
1989
Calfarm Ins. Co. v. Deukmejian (1989) 48 Cal.3d 805
counsel for intervenor
Cal. Supreme Court decision upholding Proposition 103 against constitutional challenge by the insurance industry.
-
1994
20th Century Ins. Co. v. Garamendi (1994) 8 Cal.4th 216
counsel for intervenor
Cal. Supreme Court decision upholding insurance rate regulations enforcing Proposition 103’s prohibition against excessive or inadequate rates.
-
1995
Amwest Sur. Ins. Co. v. Wilson (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1243
counsel for intervenor
Cal. Supreme Court decision invalidating an illegal legislative amendment to Proposition 103 that would have exempted surety insurance from regulation.
-
1998
Proposition 103 Enf’t Project v. Quackenbush (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1473
counsel for plaintiff
Invalidating an illegal legislative amendment to Proposition 103 that would have decreased the amount of refunds owed to policyholders under the initiative’s rate rollback provision.
-
2004
Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968
counsel for amicus curiae Consumer Watchdog
Upholding consumers’ right to bring a UCL action to enforce Proposition 103.
-
2004
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Garamendi (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1029
counsel for amicus curiae FTCR
Upholding against industry challenge Department of Insurance regulations requiring the public disclosure of insurance redlining data submitted to the Insurance Commissioner as required by Proposition 103.
-
2005
Found. for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights v. Garamendi (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1354
counsel for plaintiff
Overturning an illegal legislative amendment to Proposition 103 that would have allowed illegal surcharges to drivers who lacked prior insurance coverage.
-
2008
Fogel v. Farmers Group, Inc. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1403
counsel for amicus curiae Consumer Watchdog
Allowing a UCL action to proceed against an insurer challenging as excessive fees paid by policyholders to the insurer’s management company.
-
2009
Assn. of Cal. Ins. Cos. v. Poizner (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 1029
counsel for intervenor Consumer Watchdog
Upholding Department of Insurance regulations consistent with the language and purpose of Proposition 103 to promote consumer participation in rate proceedings.
-
2009
In re Tobacco II (2009) 207 P.3d 20
counsel for amicus curiae Consumer Watchdog
Holding that Prop 64 standing requirements apply only to named plaintiffs and not unnamed putative class members.
-
2009
Karnan v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 814
counsel for plaintiff
Allowing plaintiff in a UCL action to proceed with pre-certification discovery to locate class members.
-
2014
Consumer Watchdog v. Dept. of Managed Health Care (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 862
counsel for petitioner Consumer Watchdog
Holding that the Department of Managed Health Care can no longer uphold a health plan’s denial of coverage for autism treatment provided or supervised by a nationally board-certified individual on the basis that the provider is not licensed.
California Court of Appeals Ends State Regulator’s Discrimination Against Autistic Children
-
2017
Mercury Cas. Co. v. Jones (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 561
counsel for intervenor Consumer Watchdog
Successfully defending against insurance trade associations to uphold a decision ordering Mercury to lower its homeowner rates and limiting the amount of institutional advertising that insurers may include in their premium calculations.
-
2019
Mercury Ins. Co. v. Lara (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 82
counsel for intervenor Consumer Watchdog
Upholding a $27.6 million civil penalty against Mercury for violations of Proposition 103’s prior approval requirement and prohibition against unfair rate discrimination based on its agents charging unapproved fees in addition to the approved premium amounts on over 180,000 insurance transactions over a four-year period.
-
2021
Villanueva v. Fid. Nat. Title Co. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 104
counsel for amici curiae Consumer Watchdog, Consumer Federation of America, and Consumer Federation of California
Upholding the right of consumers to hold title insurance companies accountable for overcharges and other wrongdoing under the California Insurance Code.
Supreme Court Confirms Right to Sue Insurance Companies for Overcharges
Cases we are litigating
Consumer Watchdog’s Legal Project is currently litigating high impact consumer protection lawsuits and administrative actions, including:
-
Alleging USAA charges enlisted servicemembers more than officers
A class action on behalf of enlisted military personnel alleging that their auto insurance company, USAA, discriminates against enlisted servicemembers by charging them higher premiums than officers, in violation of provisions of Proposition 103, California’s voter-approved insurance reform law and the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
Coleman v. United Servs. Auto. Assn. (C.D. Cal., filed Feb. 4, 2021), No. 21-cv-217.
-
Alleging auto insurers kept a pandemic windfall while Californians sheltered in place
A class action on behalf of California drivers whose auto insurance carriers reaped a windfall during the COVID-19 pandemic by charging standard rates for insurance while people sheltered in place in compliance with the government’s “stay-at-home” orders and then repaid customers only a fraction of what they were owed.
Davis v. CSAA Ins. Exchange (A169729, app. pending, filed Feb. 7, 2024).
CSAA Took Advantage of Pandemic, Overcharged Policyholders by at Least $150 Million
-
CVS and access to HIV prescription drug benefits
A class action on behalf of plaintiffs living with HIV against CVS for unlawfully putting individuals’ health and privacy at risk, resulting in a loss of meaningful access to their prescription drug benefit.
Doe v. CVS Pharmacy (N.D. Cal., filed Feb. 16, 2018), No. 18-CV-1031.
HIV-Positive Individuals Seek to Certify a Class Action in Discrimination Case Against CVS
Consumer Watchdog
Consumer Watchdog is a nonprofit, non-partisan consumer research and advocacy organization founded in 1985 by consumer attorney and advocate Harvey Rosenfield. Its mission is to provide an effective voice for taxpayers and consumers in an era when special interests dominate public discourse, government, and politics. The organization deploys public interest attorneys, policy experts, strategists, and grassroots activists to expose, confront, and change unjust practices in the private and public sectors.
Download the full legal résumé (PDF) Read about our current fights