Jan 11, 2022 | Consumer Protection
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission & Three Leading Elevator Manufacturers Announce Recalls Of Residential Elevators Due To Industry-Wide Issue Of Child Entrapment Hazard; Risk Of Serious Injury Or Death To Young Children
Manufacturers Providing Free Safety Devices To Address Hazardous Gap Spaces Between Home Elevator Doors
On January 11, 2022, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”) and Bella Elevator, LLC, Inclinator Company of America, and Savaria Corporation, have announced three separate, voluntary recalls of about 69,000 residential elevators.
Young children can become entrapped in the space between the exterior landing (hoistway) door and the interior elevator car door or gate if there is a hazardous gap, and suffer serious injuries or death when the elevator is called to another floor.
Consumers should keep unsupervised young children away from the recalled residential elevators and contact the manufacturers for instructions on how to measure for space guards to correct any hazardous gap. Space guards will be provided free of charge and assistance with space guard installation will be provided on request.
Bella Elevator, Inclinator Company of America, and Savaria Corporation have agreed that all current manufacturing and distribution of future residential elevators will comply with applicable voluntary safety standards to eliminate the young child entrapment hazard. The CPSC previously warned consumers about residential elevators in July 2021.
For additional information about the residential elevator recalls, please click on the following:
Bella Elevator LLC Recalls Residential Elevators Due to Child Entrapment Hazard; Risk of Serious Injury or Death to Young Children
Inclinator Company of America Recalls Residential Elevators Due to Child Entrapment Hazard; Risk of Serious Injury or Death to Young Children
Savaria Corporation Recalls Residential Elevators Due to Child Entrapment Hazard; Risk of Serious Injury or Death to Young Children
Source: CPSC.gov
If you have been the victim of a defective or misleading consumer product and/or product recall, please complete the form on the right or e-mail [email protected] for a free, no-obligation evaluation of potential legal claims.
Jan 11, 2022 | Consumer Protection
On January 7, 2022, a class action lawsuit was filed against Omnitracs, LLC (“Omnitracs”) in United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, for violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff used to work as a truck driver in Illinois. Omnitrac’s Critical Event Video (“CEV”) hardware was equipped in Plaintiff’s truck and monitored the Plaintiff and his facial geometry. Omnitracs, allegedly, captured, collected, or otherwise obtained Plaintiff’s facial geometry and the facial geometry of others similarly situated without following the requirements of the Biometric Information Privacy Act.
One of the Omnitrac’s products is an in-vehicle camera with the technology to detect driver behavior. Omnitrac’s technology, according to the lawsuit, identifies inattentive driving behavior that may be caused, for example, by distraction, driver fatigue, or drowsiness. The Defendant’s facial mapping technology, allegedly, collects scans of a driver’s facial geometry to identify a driver’s attentiveness.
The CEV hardware, according to the complaint, provides complete visibility of the entire cab, as well as details of the driver’s face, eyes, and hands to identify drowsiness, sleep, phone use, cigarette use, seatbelt use, and other safety-critical behaviors, as certain critical trigger events.
During the relevant time period (i.e., between January 7, 2017 and the present), Defendant Omnitracs, allegedly, collected scans of Plaintiff’s facial geometry to analyze his driving behavior, despite never having informed the Plaintiff, in writing or otherwise, that scans of his facial geometry or his biometric data were being collected.
Omnitracs also, allegedly, never obtained Plaintiff’s informed written consent to collect scans of his facial geometry or his biometric data and never informed Plaintiff in writing of the purpose and length of time for which Defendant Omnitracs would collect scans of the Plaintiff’s facial geometry.
For more information about the collection, use and/or dissemination of biometric information, please click here.
If you believe your biometric data has been illegally collected, stored, used, disclosed, transmitted or disseminated by a private entity, please contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., [email protected], for a free, no-obligation evaluation of potential legal claims.
Jan 11, 2022 | Consumer Protection
Newell Brands Inc. & Sunbeam Products, Inc. Subject Of Class Action For The Alleged Marketing, Manufacture And/Or Sale Of Consumer Products Containing Warranty Statements That Condition The Continued Validity Of A Warranty On The Use Of Only An Authorized Repair Service
On January 7, 2022, a class action lawsuit was filed in United States District Court for the District Of Massachusetts, against Newell Brands Inc. and Sunbeam Products, Inc. for the manufacture, marketing, and/or sale of consumer products under the Sunbeam, Crockpot, Oyster, and Mr. Coffee brand names with warranty statements that constitute an alleged, illegal “tying arrangement” – a circumstance which conditions a consumer product’s warranty on the use of a specific repair service.
The complaint, among other things, alleges that the Newell and Sunbeam Defendants “exacerbate these violations by stating on the outside of the product packaging that the [p]roducts include a one-year limited warranty, but the unlawful repair restriction is not revealed to the consumer until after the point of sale.”
According to the class action complaint, “a reasonable consumer would rely on the warranty mentioned on the outside of the packaging,” and if class members knew about the “unlawful repair restriction, they would not have purchased the [p]roduct, or would have paid significantly less for it.” The Defendants’ conduct is an an alleged violation of the tying prohibition of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
For more information about repair restrictions and illegal “tying arrangements,” please click here.
If you feel that you have been prevented or obstructed from having a consumer product repaired using third-party replacement parts or independent repair shops or facilities, or that your warranty was voided, or will be voided, because of independent repair, please complete the form on the right or e-mail [email protected] for a free, no-obligation evaluation of potential legal claims.
Jan 10, 2022 | Blog, Consumer Protection
FTC Report To Congress Finds There Is Little Evidence To Support Manufacturers’ Justifications For Repair Restrictions
In a new report to Congress, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) identified numerous types of repair restrictions, such as using adhesives that make parts difficult to replace, limiting the availability of spare parts, and making diagnostic software unavailable.
The report’s findings, including that “there is scant evidence to support manufacturers’ justifications for repair restrictions,” are primarily based on responses to the FTC’s requests for public comments and empirical research issued in connection with its July 2019 workshop, “Nixing the Fix: A Workshop on Repair Restrictions.”
Congress directed the FTC to issue the report, noting that it “is aware of the FTC’s ongoing review of how manufacturers – in particular mobile phone and car manufacturers – may limit repairs by consumers and repair shops, and how those limitations may increase costs, limit choice, and impact consumers’ rights under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.”
The Anti-Tying Provision Of The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”)
The MMWA is a consumer protection law passed in 1975 to clarify how written warranties may be used when marketing products to consumers.
The MMWA requires warrantors of consumer products to provide consumers with detailed information about warranty coverage.
Section 102(c) of the MMWA, known as the anti-tying provision, prohibits warrantors from conditioning warranty coverage on the consumer’s use of an article or service identified by brand, trade, or corporate name, unless the warrantor provides that article or service without charge or the warrantor has received a waiver from the FTC.
This provision, for example, bars an automobile manufacturer from voiding a warranty if a consumer has scheduled maintenance performed by someone other than the dealer, prohibits a printer manufacturer from conditioning its warranty on the purchaser’s use of the manufacturer’s branded ink, and forbids a smartphone manufacturer from voiding a warranty when a consumer has a new battery installed at a kiosk at the mall.
Essentially, the anti-tying provision bars manufacturers from using access to warranty coverage as a way of obstructing consumers’ ability to have their consumer products maintained or repaired using third-party replacement parts and independent repair shops.
Companies may seek a waiver of this prohibition if: (1) the warrantor satisfies the FTC that the manufacturers’ parts or services are necessary for the product to function, and (2) the waiver is in the public interest. Since 1975, only three waiver requests have been made to the FTC, all of which were denied.
Types Of Repair Restrictions
There are certain manufacturer practices that “right to repair” advocates assert have the effect of limiting consumer repair choices.
Repair restrictions discussed at the FTC’s July 2019 Workshop on Repair Restrictions generally fall into eight categories:
1) Physical restrictions; 2) Unavailability of parts, repair manuals, and diagnostic software and tools; 3) Designs that make independent repairs less safe; Telematics (i.e., information on the operation and status of a vehicle that is collected by a system contained in the vehicle and wirelessly relayed to a central location, often the manufacturer or dealer of the vehicle); 4) Application of patent rights and enforcement of trademarks; 5) Disparagement of non-OEM parts and independent repair; 6) Software locks; 7) Digital Rights Management and Technical Protection Measures; and 8) End User License Agreements.
Source: Federal Trade Commission
If you feel that you have been prevented or obstructed from having a consumer product repaired using third-party replacement parts or independent repair shops or facilities, or that your warranty was voided, or will be voided, because of independent repair, please complete the form on the right or e-mail [email protected] for a free, no-obligation evaluation of potential legal claims.
Dec 20, 2021 | Blog, Consumer Protection
Joint Letters Remind Landlords And Mortgage Servicers To Adhere To The CARES Act & Additional Legal Requirements Under The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act
On December 20, 2021, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) and U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) issued two joint letters regarding important legal housing protections for military families.
One letter was sent to landlords and other housing providers regarding protections for military tenants. A second letter was sent to mortgage servicers regarding military borrowers who have already exited or will be exiting COVID-19 mortgage forbearance programs in the coming weeks and months.
The letter to landlords and other housing providers reminds property owners of the important housing protections for military tenants, some of whom may have had to relocate or make other changes to their housing arrangements in response to the crisis. While military families enjoy the same legal protections and privileges afforded to all other homeowners and tenants, they also have additional housing protections under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), which is enforceable by the DOJ and servicemembers themselves.
The letter to mortgage servicers comes in response to complaints from military families and veterans on a range of potential mortgage servicing violations, including inaccurate credit reporting, misleading communications to borrowers, and required lump sum payments for reinstating their mortgage loans. These complaints are being reviewed for compliance by the CFPB with the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act and other applicable requirements.
The CFPB and DOJ are calling on mortgage servicers and landlords to ensure that military homeowners and tenants are safeguarded during the pandemic and benefit equally from the Nation’s economic recovery.
Source: CFPB/consumerfinance.gov.
Dec 17, 2021 | Blog, Consumer Protection
The CFPB is concerned about accumulating debt, regulatory arbitrage, and data harvesting in a consumer credit market already quickly changing with technology.
Buy now, pay later credit is a type of deferred payment option that generally allows the consumer to split a purchase into smaller installments, typically four or less, often with a down payment of 25 percent due at checkout. The application process is quick, involving relatively little information from the consumer, and the product often comes with no interest. Lenders have touted BNPL as a safer alternative to credit card debt, along with its ability to serve consumers with scant or subprime credit histories.
According to the CFPB, merchants are adopting BNPL programs and are willing to typically pay 3 percent to 6 percent of the purchase price to the companies, similar to credit card interchange fees, because consumers often buy more and spend more with BNPL. Indeed, BNPL’s use has spiked during the COVID-19 pandemic and throughout the holiday shopping season. More and more Americans are using it, and the most recent Black Friday and Cyber Monday shopping weekend saw massive growth in BNPL. This explosive growth has caught the eye of many investors, including significant venture capital money. Big tech companies are also entering the arena.
The law requires that the CFPB monitor consumer financial markets and enables the agency to require market players to submit information to inform this monitoring. The CFPB expects to publish aggregated findings on insights learned from this inquiry. The CFPB Bureau is concerned about the following:
Accumulating Debt
Whereas the old-style layaway installment loans were typically used for the occasional big purchase, people can quickly become regular users of BNPL for everyday discretionary buying, especially if they download the easy-to-use apps or install the web browser plugins. If a consumer has multiple purchases on multiple schedules with multiple companies, it may be hard to keep track of when payments are scheduled. And when there is not enough money in a consumer’s bank account, this can potentially result in charges by both the consumer’s bank and the BNPL provider. Because of the ease of getting these loans, consumers can end up spending more than anticipated.
Regulatory Arbitrage
Some BNPL companies may not be adequately evaluating what consumer protection laws apply to their products. For example, some BNPL products do not provide certain disclosures, which could be required by some laws. And while the BNPL application may look similar to a standard checkout with a credit card, protections that apply to credit cards may not apply to BNPL products. Many BNPL companies do not provide dispute resolution protections available to users of other forms of credit, like credit cards. And finally, depending on what rules the lender is following, different late fees and policies apply.
Data Harvesting
BNPL lenders have access to the valuable payment histories of their customers. Some have used this collected data to create closed loop shopping apps with partner merchants, pushing specific brands and products, often geared toward younger audiences. As competitive forces pressure the merchant discount, lenders will need to find other sources of revenue to maintain growth and profitability. The Bureau would like to better understand practices around data collection, behavioral targeting, data monetization and the risks they may create for consumers.
For more information about BNPL, please click: Know Before You Buy.
Source: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
