My latest Liability Outlook looks at the abusive litigation created by a statutory drafting oversight: a bill designed to protect against identity theft has instead become a mechanism for the entrepreneurial plaintiffs’ bar to attempt to bankrupt innocent businesses that haven’t harmed anyone.
In the latest issue of the Federalist Society’s Class Action Watch, Mark Behrens and Christopher Appel look at recent rulings from the New Jersey and Missouri Supreme Courts that reject lead paint public nuisance claims. James Beck looks at the American Law Institute’s “Principles” projects. Brian D. Boyle and Julia A. Berman look at fact-based scrutiny in securities and antitrust actions. Jessica D. Miller and Nina Ramos look at fluid recovery. Kenneth J. Reilly and Frank Cruz-Alvarez look at an Eleventh Circuit case that may have set a new standard for federal diversity jurisdiction. Last, but not least, there is a front-page article from me analyzing an omission in the Fair Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) that might provide a substantial windfall for the plaintiffs’ bar.
- Litigation as foreign policy? Bill authorizing U.S. government to sue OPEC passes House, and is already contributing to friction with Russia [AP; Reuters; Steffy, Houston Chronicle; earlier here, here, and here]
- Albany prosecutors charge boxing champion’s family with staging 23 car crashes, but a jury acquits [Obscure Store; Times-Union; North Country Gazette]
- New at Point of Law: Bill Lerach may retire; Abe Lincoln’s legal practice; Philip Howard on getting weak cases thrown out; “Year of the Trial Lawyer” in Colorado; and much more;
- Multiple partygoers bouncing on a trampoline not an “open and obvious” risk, says Ohio appeals court approving suit [Wilmington News-Journal]
- Skadden and its allies were said to be representing Chinatown restaurant workers pro bono — then came the successful $1 million fee request, bigger than the damages themselves [NYLJ]
- Who will cure the epidemic of public health meddling? [Sullum, Reason]
- Turn those credit slips into gold, cont’d: lawsuits burgeon over retail receipts that print out too much data [NJLJ; earlier]
- Lawprof Howard Wasserman has further discussion of the Josh Hancock case (Cardinals baseball player crashes while speeding, drunk and using cellphone) [Sports Law Blog; earlier]
- “Women prisoners in a Swedish jail are demanding the ‘human right’ to wear bikinis so they can get a decent tan.” [Telegraph, U.K.]
- Disbarred Miami lawyer Louis Robles, who prosecutors say stole at least $13 million from clients, detained as flight risk after mysterious “Ms. Wiki” informs [DBR; earlier at PoL]
- Indiana courts reject motorist’s claim that Cingular should pay for crash because its customer was talking on cellphone while driving [three years ago on Overlawyered]
The Chicago law firm of Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC has some wonderful news for you:
We are looking for electronically generated credit / debit card receipts which show either (a) the card expiration date or (b) any digits of the credit/ debit card number other than the last five.
In order to protect consumers against identity theft, an amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act with a final effective date of December 4, 2006 requires merchants who accept credit/ debit cards and issue electronic receipts to program their machines to not show either the expiration date or more than the last 5 digits of the credit/ debit card number. The expiration date is important because a thief can use it together with the last four or five digits of the number to reconstruct the entire card number.
It is a violation to show either the expiration date or more than the last 5 digits of the card number. (We have seen some receipts where 4 or 5 other digits are shown, and that is a violation.) It is not necessary that any identity theft have actually occurred. Damages for a willful violation are $100 to $1,000 per receipt. The class representative may be able to obtain some additional compensation.
We have a number of pending cases alleging this violation and are interested in other merchants who are violating the law.
The burgeoning volume of entrepreneurial litigation over insufficiently blinded credit slips is the subject of a recent Wall Street Journal article: see Robin Sidel, “Retailers Whose Slips Show Too Much Attract Lawsuits”, Apr. 28, reprinted Cattle Network, Apr. 28. For more about name partner Daniel Edelman, see Nov. 15, 1999 (infamous BancBoston settlement), Feb. 7, 2000, and Dec. 11, 2006. The Edelman firm’s website has a long listing of notable case involvements which boasts of its role in mortgage escrow class actions, but does not mention BancBoston.