The American Tort Reform Association has released its annual “Judicial Hellholes” report, and New Jersey is once again recognized as a state on the brink of becoming a litigation hot spot. ATRA notes that our state’s consumer protection laws are far from mainstream, and our court system is becoming hostile to arbitration agreements, in direct contravention of federal law.
On Thursday, December 3, at noon, the New Jersey Civil Justice Institute is holding a policy teleforum on Morgan v. Sanford Brown Inst., a case that will provide greater insight into what direction the New Jersey courts are heading in arbitration cases. The featured speaker will be Gavin J. Rooney of Lowenstein Sandler LLP, the lead author of NJCJI’s amicus brief in this case.
One of our complaints about New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act is that it is overly broad – encompassing many disputes that could resolved more efficiently by other means. We frequently oppose bills that would add to the already cumbersome Act, so it surprised many when came out in support of a recent bill expanding the CFA.
On October 27, Governor Christie signed into law A617, which would “Prohibit sending unsolicited advertising by text messaging, and requires companies offering text messaging services to allow customers to block all incoming and outgoing text messages.” This legislation, which Christie had previously conditionally vetoed after listening to NJCJI’s concerns, contains language that prevents this new regulation from becoming a breeding ground for litigation.
A selection of the need-to-know civil justice news for the week of October 10-16.
The New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act is a very convoluted law that regulates virtually everything bought and sold in the state of New Jersey. It is also the genesis of hundreds of lawsuits. One CFA lawsuit we’ve been closely following is Josh Finkelman’s battle against the NFL over the price of Super Bowl tickets (the case even made our CFA Hall of Shame).
It has been almost a year since we first brought the plight of Just Mayo to your attention. The popular start-up company that makes egg-less food products has been entangled in multiple legal battles over the past year all because there is federal definition of mayonnaise. Yes, you read that right, there is a federal definition of mayonnaise, and it’s spurring litigation.
One of the things that struck a chord with attendees of our recent legal reform conference was our discussion of class actions that are filed in the wake of government enforcement actions. Under these circumstances, companies end up taking a double hit - first from government regulators, and then from plaintiffs’ attorneys acting under the cloak of consumer protection. Hastily filed consumer class actions can compromise the government’s ability to effectively regulate, and often provide only marginal additional benefits to consumers, yet they are increasingly common. In just the past few days, news broke that two such cases have been filed in New Jersey shortly after high-profile government enforcement actions were announced.
A selection of the need-to-know civil justice news for the week of August 29 - September 4.
When most people think consumer fraud protection they imagine government agents going out into the field to inspect businesses, write tickets, and shut down bad-actors. As reports from the state Attorney General’s office can attest, these things do happen, but they are just one part of the state’s enforcement mechanism. A wide variety of regulations are also enforced via lawsuits brought by private attorneys effectively deputized as government enforcement agents.
