Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Court held, on a 6–3 vote, in favor of Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, ruling that proof of "actual malice" was necessary in product disparagement cases raising First Amendment issues, as set out by the case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). The Court ruled that the First Circuit Court of Appeals had ...
Consumer protection is the practice of safeguarding buyers of goods and services, ... Case 3 C 34.84, ... and exploitation of the consumer. On 5 February 2019, the ...
Case opinions Affirmed 3-0 that the Federal Communications Commission's universal service funding program is constitutional. Federal Communications Commission , 67 F.4th 773 (2023), was a court ruling at the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit , concerning a challenge by Consumers' Research against the Federal Communications ...
A U.S. watchdog is suing Capital One for allegedly misleading consumers about its offerings for high-interest savings accounts — and “cheating" customers out of more than $2 billion in lost ...
The compact SUV Suzuki Samurai gained a reputation in the U.S. market of being an unsafe car and prone to a rollover after Consumer Reports, the magazine arm of Consumers Union, reported that during a 1988 test on the short course avoidance maneuver (Consumer Union Short Course Double Lane Change, or CUSC for short), the Samurai experienced what they deemed as an unacceptable amount of tipover ...
The problems go beyond any one case. On April 15, the feds filed a complaint in South Florida federal court against Tirso Neri, charging him with transportation and possession of child pornography.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. 197 (2020) was a U.S. Supreme Court case which determined that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), with a single director who could only be removed from office "for cause", violated the separation of powers.
Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., 582 U.S. ___ (2017), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that a company is not a "debt collector" under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) if it purchased that debt and then attempts to collect from the debtor.