Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Consumers (2)
- 2008 financial crisis (1)
- Access to justice (1)
- Breach of contract (1)
- Breach of fiduciary duty (1)
-
- Cateogorization (1)
- Civil actions (1)
- Class action (1)
- Consumer defendants (1)
- Data breach; standing; data breach litigation; hacking; personal information; data theft; personally identifiable information; data breach notification; cybersecurity; law; policy; third party cyber liability (1)
- Defined benefit (1)
- Defined contribution (1)
- Department of Labor fiduciary rule (1)
- Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (1)
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1)
- Federal courts (1)
- Federal opioid (1)
- Fiduciary contract (1)
- Fiduciary standards (1)
- Fifth Circuit (1)
- Fraudulent misrepresentation (1)
- Hugler (1)
- Individual responsibility model (1)
- Injuries (1)
- Intangible harms (1)
- Litigation (1)
- Lumping (1)
- New best interest (1)
- Opioid (1)
- Opioid epidemic (1)
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Legal Remedies
Increasing Lapses In Data Security: The Need For A Common Answer To What Constitutes Standing In A Data Breach Context, Aaron Benjamin Edelman
Increasing Lapses In Data Security: The Need For A Common Answer To What Constitutes Standing In A Data Breach Context, Aaron Benjamin Edelman
Journal of Law and Policy
As the number of data breaches continues to rise in the United States, so does the amount of data breach litigation. Many potential plaintiffs who suffered as victims of data breaches, however, find themselves in limbo regarding the issue of standing before a court because of a significant split on standing determinations amongst the federal circuit courts. Thus, while victims of data breaches oftentimes have their personal information fall into the hands of nefarious characters who intend to use the information to a victim’s detriment, that may not be enough to provide victims a right to sue in federal court …
Combatting The Opioid Epidemic In Texas By Holding Big Pharma Manufacturers Liable, Katherine Spiser
Combatting The Opioid Epidemic In Texas By Holding Big Pharma Manufacturers Liable, Katherine Spiser
St. Mary's Law Journal
Abstract forthcoming
Regulating Retirement: Understanding The Impact Of New Best Interest And Fiduciary Standards On Retail Investors, Michael Lichtmacher
Regulating Retirement: Understanding The Impact Of New Best Interest And Fiduciary Standards On Retail Investors, Michael Lichtmacher
St. Mary's Law Journal
Abstract forthcoming
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Seattle University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Deceptively Simple: The Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Margaret E. Rushing
Deceptively Simple: The Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Margaret E. Rushing
Arkansas Law Review
In the 2017 legislative session, the Arkansas General Assembly significantly changed the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“ADTPA”). These changes now prohibit private class actions under the ADTPA and require plaintiffs to prove additional elements of reliance and actual financial loss when bringing a claim. The changes appear to limit the ability of a consumer to bring a private action under the ADPTA. With these changes, Arkansas joins a minority of jurisdictions with deceptive trade practices acts that increase a plaintiff’s burden and restrict private class actions.
Why Consumer Defendants Lump It, Emily S. Taylor Poppe
Why Consumer Defendants Lump It, Emily S. Taylor Poppe
Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy
No abstract provided.
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Seattle University Law Review
No abstract provided.
A Post-Spokeo Taxonomy Of Intangible Harms, Jackson Erpenbach
A Post-Spokeo Taxonomy Of Intangible Harms, Jackson Erpenbach
Michigan Law Review
Article III standing is a central requirement in federal litigation. The Supreme Court’s Spokeo decision marked a significant development in the doctrine, dividing the concrete injury-in-fact requirement into two subsets: tangible and intangible harms. While tangible harms are easily cognizable, plaintiffs alleging intangible harms can face a perilous path to court. This raises particular concern for the system of federal consumer protection laws where enforcement relies on consumers vindicating their own rights by filing suit when companies violate federal law. These plaintiffs must often allege intangible harms arising out of their statutorily guaranteed rights. This Note demonstrates that Spokeo’s …