HOW TRUMP JUDGES ARE DAMAGING

Consumer Protections

AFJ Action Campaign is tracking the votes of every senator up for reelection in 2020 on Trump’s worst of the worst judges. Each senator who voted to confirm these judges owns the decisions—these decisions are harming people every day. See how your senator voted for some of the worst of the worst judges here.

In Federal Trade Commission v. Abbvie, Third Circuit judges David Porter and Peter Phipps reversed a district court decision that ordered AbbVie and Besins Healthcare Inc. to pay $448 million for allegedly filing sham patent lawsuits to stifle competition. While the decision acknowledged that the pharmaceutical companies had filed an “objectively baseless” lawsuit to blunt competition, it held that the Federal Trade Commission Act does not give courts the power to order disgorgement, which would enable the Federal Trade Commission to reclaim profits from companies that benefited from unfair competition.


In FTC v. Credit Bureau Center, Seventh Circuit judges Amy Coney Barrett, Michael Brennan, Michael Scudder, and Amy St. Eve refused to reconsider a decision prohibiting the FTC from seeking restitution for victims of consumer fraud. To reach the result, the Seventh Circuit overturned its own precedent and ignored opposite rulings from eight other circuits.


In Casillas v. Madison Ave. Associates Inc., Barrett wrote a decision denying consumers the ability to enforce their rights under federal law against abusive debt collection practices.


In Cigar Association of America v. FDA, D.C. Circuit judge Gregory Katsas authored an opinion stating that the FDA improperly imposed a rule requiring cigar companies to label health risks on the packaging because it did not consider how warnings would affect the industry.


In Mey v. DirectTV, Fourth Circuit judge Allison Rushing compelled arbitration of Diana Mey’s claim against DIRECTV for making unwanted telemarketing calls, in violation of federal consumer protection law, based on the fact that Mey had signed an arbitration agreement eight years earlier with AT&T when she bought a cell phone. AT&T bought DIRECTV three years after Mey had signed the contract, and Rushing held that was enough to compel arbitration. Judge Pamela Harris, in dissent, argued that no reasonable person buying cellphone services from AT&T, and entering into the accompanying arbitration agreement, “would have reason to believe she was signing away her right to sue any and all corporate entities that might later come under the same corporate umbrella.” Harris emphasized Mey never was a DIRECTV customer and had never signed a contract with DIRECTV containing an arbitration clause.


In Keathley v. Grange Insurance Company of Michigan, Sixth Circuit judge Amul Thapar, in dissent, would have dismissed without trial Tamika Keathley’s claim against her insurance company after it refused to cover major water damage to her house. The company claimed that Keathley had failed to give “prompt notice” of the damage as her policy required, even though she had immediately called the agent who had sold her the plan and he had told her that she had six months to file a claim.


In Revitch v. DirecTV, LLC, Judge Mark Bennett dissented from a Ninth Circuit decision that applying a customer’s arbitration agreement with AT&T to his dispute with DirecTV would produce “absurd results.” Bennett would have forced Jeremy Revitch to go through a lengthy arbitration process to enforce federal law and stop DirecTV from making unauthorized robocalls to his cell phone, simply because Revitch signed an arbitration agreement with AT&T years before the wireless service provider acquired DirecTV. The majority held that Revitch did not consent “to arbitrate any dispute with any corporate entity that happens to be acquired by AT&T Inc.” when he signed his cell phone contract.


In Chronis v. U.S., Seventh Circuit judge Amy Coney Barrett ruled against a woman who experienced bruising and pain as a result of a routine pap smear and sought to recover $332 in expenses incurred because of the injury. Despite making a claim for “restitution” and including over 60 pages of documents, which included that the doctor had committed malpractice, Barrett ruled — over a dissent from a George H.W. Bush appointee — that the woman’s efforts were somehow insufficient to put the defendant on notice of her claim.

 


Overview Health Care Reproductive Health Racial Justice
Police Misconduct Voting Rights Worker Protections Consumer Protections
LGBTQ Equality Immigrant Rights Clean Air and Water Gun Safety
Rule of Law Tribal Rights Education