Key point: Courts are concluding that not all data breaches should result in a lawsuit. Businesses need to consider causation and damages when responding to an incident and take steps to determine if there is no evidence of harm or traceability including on a class wide basis.
In a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the court reversed a district court’s ruling and compelled arbitration in the case of Massel v. Successfulmatch.com dba Millionaire Match. The appellate court concluded that the plaintiff consumer received reasonably conspicuous notice of the Service Agreement (containing the arbitration clause), to which the plaintiff assented by checking the box required for account creation and continued use of the website.
In a significant ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a consumer’s state law claims against a federal credit union on federal preemption grounds. The putative class action plaintiff’s claims challenged the credit union’s $15 dollar returned-check fee under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), arguing it was an “unfair” and “unlawful” business practice, especially since the check the plaintiff deposited was declined without any funds being made available to him. The Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s ruling that the plaintiff’s state law unfair competition claim was preempted by 12 C.F.R. § 701.35, which states expressly that state laws regulating bank fees do not apply to federal credit unions.
In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, Chris Willis is joined by veteran litigators and Troutman Pepper Locke Partners Mary Zinsner and Heryka Knoespel to dissect a groundbreaking Fourth Circuit decision on bank liability in wire transfer fraud cases. The ruling clarifies the actual knowledge standard under the Uniform Commercial Code, rejecting negligence-based liability and safeguarding the speed and efficiency of the banking system. Discover how this decision impacts future litigation and the banking industry’s approach to fraud prevention.
In this episode of Payments Pros, Carlin McCrory is joined by Mary Zinsner, a partner in the Consumer Financial Services Practice Group, to explore the increasing litigation trends in the payments industry, with a focus on elder fraud and financial exploitation.
The American Arbitration Association (AAA) has announced revisions to its Consumer Arbitration Rules effective May 1, 2025. The revised rules can be found here and the AAA’s announcement of the rules here. Prior to amending the rules, AAA requested public comments on its proposed changes, soliciting ways to improve the rules while ensuring fairness to all participants in the arbitration process. Although not every rule was revised, there are some significant changes.
Mass arbitration continues to be a significant and evolving issue in the legal landscape, particularly for consumer, healthcare, and employment disputes. The American Arbitration Association (AAA) recently released data from 2024 that provides valuable insights into the trends and outcomes of mass arbitrations.
On April 1, the American Arbitration Association (AAA) announced the launch of its new Consumer Mediation Procedures and Fee Schedule. According to the announcement, updates aim to simplify and make dispute resolution more accessible for consumers, particularly those who are self-represented and may be unfamiliar with the mediation process. Prior to the adopting the procedures, the AAA did not have any processes in place for explaining the benefits of mediation or disclosing the fees associated with using a AAA mediator.
On March 26, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed a district court’s decision holding a credit union liable for a wire transfer in a business email compromise scam case where the credit union lacked “actual knowledge” of the mismatch between the account number and beneficiary.
On March 11, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration in two class-action lawsuits. The decision potentially has far-reaching implications for the enforceability of arbitration clauses in consumer contracts, particularly those involving unilateral modification provisions.