U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Consumers’ Rights In State Courts

Andrus Anderson LLP lauds a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Altria v. Good to deny immunity for cigarette manufacturers who violate state consumer protection laws with false claims of lowered tar and nicotine.

Partner Lori Andrus agrees with the statement issued by the America Association for Justice (www.justice.org): “Today’s decision is a victory for consumers and affirms that cigarette manufacturers cannot claim immunity from consumer fraud when they claim their products have lowered tar and nicotine levels, even though they do not. State laws have an important role to play in helping the federal government police false claims, and today’s decision supports that role.”

“We hope that the court continues to look at claims of corporate immunity from the perspective of consumer health and safety and continues to support the rights of consumers to get justice through the courts.”

To view the full Supreme Court opinion, click here.

Federal Court Judge Rules That Lending Discrimination Claims May Proceed

A federal court in San Diego ruled Monday that Plaintiff’s claims that lenders’ discretionary home mortgage pricing policies have a discriminatory impact on African American borrowers in violation of the Fair Housing Act (”FHA”) and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (”ECOA”) may proceed.  See Taylor v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., Case No. 07-cv-0732. In denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims, which are asserted on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated borrowers, United States District Court Judge John A. Houston wrote that “[t]he Ninth Circuit clearly recognizes the FHA and the ECOA permit discrimination claims under a theory of disparate impact as well as disparate treatment.”  Moreover, “[t]his Court finds Plaintiff sufficiently alleges Defendants engage in a ‘outwardly neutral practice’ though their discretionary pricing policy…[and] specifically identifies and challenges the policy of authorizing brokers to apply subjective, non-risk based factors to impose ‘rate mark-ups.”’  These allegations, along with “statistical information of the discriminatory affect on African Americans in the complaint[]” are sufficient, the Court held.

AA LLP Partner, Jennie Lee Anderson, who argued on behalf of Plaintiff and the class at the hearing, said that the Court’s ruling was correct.  “The FHA and the ECOA seek to ensure that all borrowers, regardless of their race, have equal access to credit and housing,” she said.  “The Court’s decision furthers those important policy goals,” Ms. Anderson said.  For more information regarding the decision or other inquiries regarding credit and housing discrimination, please contact an AA LLP attorney.

To view a copy of the Court’s Order in pdf, please click here.