close X
10/25/2017

CoA Institute Applauds Senate Vote to Kill Harmful CFPB Arbitration Rule

Washington, DC – Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) today commended a Senate vote to kill a rule by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) that would have banned arbitration clauses in consumer contracts for financial products. Vice President Mike Pence cast the tie-breaking vote to reject the rule under the Congressional Review Act. CoA Institute has led the charge in showing that CFPB failed to adequately justify its arbitration rule, which would increase costs on consumers.

CoA Institute Counsel Eric R. Bolinder: “The Senate last evening took a strong stand in rejecting a CFPB rule that would enrich class action attorneys at the expense of the American economy and consumers. This rule was based on a flawed scientific study that used junk data and methodology, contrary to the requirements of Dodd-Frank and the Information Quality Act. Government rules, especially those that have broad effects on consumers and business, must be based on sound science.”

In 2000, Congress passed the Information Quality Act to ensure that agencies use quality data in rulemaking, ensuring the objectivity, integrity, and utility of agency methodology. The Office of Management and Budget subsequently issued its own guidance that calls for agencies to have other experts and scientists verify their work through a rigorous peer-review process.

In March 2015, CFPB released a 728-page report, which was not peer reviewed, purporting to show how class action lawsuits benefit consumers. The report, when looked at through an objective eye, arguably demonstrated the opposite. Class action lawsuits can often result in a worse outcome for consumers than individual arbitration, which is a quicker and more efficient process for settling disputes.

In April 2016, CoA Institute filed a Freedom of Information Act request for records that would show how the agency conducted its study. Although CFPB produced some documents, it withheld 1,877 pages of responsive records. In December, 2016, CoA Institute filed a lawsuit to compel the CFPB to provide all responsive records not covered under a valid exemption.

In August 2016, CoA Institute filed a regulatory comment highlighting key problems with the arbitration rule. The comment outlines how the rule would subject numerous financial institutions to a flood of class action lawsuits, further burdening the courts and ultimately injuring consumers.  CFPB responded to CoA Institute’s comment, providing a woefully inadequate defense of its rule.  CoA Institute also submitted written testimony for the record to Congress.

For information regarding this press release, please contact Zachary Kurz, Director of Communications at CoA Institute: zachary.kurz@causeofaction.org

 

Media, Press Release Learn More
10/17/2017

CoA Institute to Appeal Ruling that Children’s Clothing Consignment Volunteers Must be Considered Employees

Washington, DC – Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) today announced it will appeal a ruling by the district court that wrongly found that volunteers at Rhea Lana’s children’s clothing consignment events must be considered employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Cause of Action Institute Vice President Julie Smith: “The district court reached the wrong conclusion in taking an outdated view of a decades-old law intended to protect vulnerable individuals and groups from exploitation. The court freely conceded that Rhea Lana’s labor practices are not designed to exploit anybody. We continue to believe that the Department of Labor has overstepped its authority. The federal government should not attack a business model that provides hardworking families with affordable children’s clothing.”

Rhea Lana Riner: “Individuals should be free to volunteer their time for their own benefit. The Labor Department’s crusade to classify volunteers as employees has put my business and livelihood in jeopardy. If everyone is satisfied, why would the federal government need to intervene?”

Case background:
Rhea Lana founded her clothing consignment business in her living room more than a decade ago. Since the company’s humble beginnings, Rhea Lana, Inc. has expanded as a franchise with 80 locations across 24 states.

In 2013, the U.S. Department of Labor conducted an audit, and sent Rhea Lana a letter claiming that her company was in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act regarding minimum wages and overtime pay.  The government claimed that volunteers who help at the consignment events must be classified as “employees.”

Rhea Lana’s complaint was initially dismissed in 2014 for lack of a reviewable agency action.  On appeal, however, the Court of Appeals held that the government’s letter to Rhea Lana was subject to judicial review.  Last month, the district court ruled in favor of the government. CoA Institute will represent Rhea Lana in her appeal of the district court’s decision.

Rhea Lana Inc., et al. v. Department of Labor, No, 14-0017, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Watch a short video about Rhea Lana’s story here

For information regarding this press release, please contact Zachary Kurz, Director of Communications at CoA Institute: zachary.kurz@causeofaction.org

Media, Press Release Learn More
10/2/2017

Supreme Court Denies Petition to Review Job-Killing Fishery Rule

Washington, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court today denied the petition for writ of certiorari filed by Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) on behalf of its clients, groundfisherman David Goethel and Northeast Fishery Sector 13. Mr. Goethel and Sector 13 sued the U.S. Department of Commerce in December 2015 after the agency announced that it would begin shifting the costs for at-sea monitoring onto fishermen.  That transition was anticipated as early as 2010, but the government delayed its implementation for over five years.  Both the U.S. District Court for New Hampshire and the First Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that the fishermen had filed their legal challenge too late. 

CoA Institute Vice President Julie Smith: “We are disappointed that the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.  Our clients deserved an opportunity for their challenge to be heard on the merits. The Department of Commerce has gone beyond the bounds of the law in putting this financial burden of more than $700 per day on small-scale fishing businesses in the Northeast. Because the New England Fishery Management Council has announced its intention to extend this unlawful requirement to other fishermen, we will continue to look for ways to challenge that and to require the Department of Commerce to follow the law. This fight is not over.”

The Supreme Court’s refusal to review the First Circuit’s opinion on pre-enforcement review and its interpretation of certain provisions in the Magnuson-Stevens Act allow a dangerous precedent to stand. As argued in the petition, the First Circuit decision “effectively eliminate[s] the doctrine of pre-enforcement review and the possibility of meaningful judicial review of delayed agency implanting actions.” Moreover, “it rewards agencies that delay implementation of regulations by making their later actions immune to challenge.”

David Goethel: “The Supreme Court was our last judicial hope to save a centuries-old New England industry. I’ve been fishing my entire adult life, and I will try to continue, but the costs associated with at-sea monitoring will be crushing. We may have lost the battle, but the war to save the fishing industry from overregulation is far from over.”

Sector 13 Manager John Haran: “This is a sad day for the New England fishing industry. The high court’s decision to allow the First Circuit’s decision to stand puts the full brunt of at-sea monitoring costs on industry. Many fishermen in my sector will likely be put out of business. It may be too late for judicial relief, but we hope the regional Councils and our legislators act quickly to remove this job-killing mandate.”

Case Background

In November 2015, the Department of Commerce finally announced a date by which sector fishermen who fish for cod, flounder, and other groundfish, must not only carry third-party contractors known as “at-sea monitors” on their vessels during fishing trips, but also pay out-of-pocket for the cost of those monitors.  CoA Institute’s clients filed suit to challenge this industry funding requirement, which will devastate the New England fishing industry.

In July 2016, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire dismissed the lawsuit.  CoA Institute appealed the decision and, in April 2017, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the District Court’s ruling, but without addressing the merits of the case. The First Circuit held that the fishermen’s suit was untimely and must have been filed within thirty days of the original agency rule that mandated industry-funding, even though this requirement was never enforced for half-a-decade. Interestingly, while the First Circuit did not address the merits of the case, it emphasized the devastating economic impacts of the regulation and, in a rare move, urged congressional action to clarify the Magnuson-Stevens Act regarding the payment of monitors.

For information regarding this press release, please contact Zachary Kurz, Director of Communications at CoA Institute: zachary.kurz@causeofaction.org

 

Media, Press Release Learn More
09/27/2017

CoA Institute Moves to Strike FBI Official’s Opinions from Clinton Email Case

Washington D.C. – Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) today filed a motion to strike from the record improper opinion testimony submitted by FBI Assistant Director E.W. Priestap. The declaration was filed in support of the government’s defense in a pending case against the State Department and National Archives and Records Administration regarding former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s unlawful removal of emails.  The suit seeks to refer the matter to the Attorney General, which is what the law requires.

A federal judge in August ordered the government to publicly release the unredacted declaration that it had previously filed so that only the judge was able to review it. The FBI’s declaration includes several opinions that the government relies on to support its case. For example, Mr. Priestap states that “[i]t is my opinion that there are no further investigative actions that can be undertaken by the FBI to recover additional Clinton work-related e-mails which would be meaningful to the investigation, as described above.”

However, the investigation Mr. Priestap is referencing is “the potential unauthorized transmission and storage of classified information on the personal e-mail server of former Secretary Clinton.”  He is not referencing a record-recovery effort pursuant to the Federal Records Act (“FRA”), which is the subject of this litigation.

Cause of Action Institute President and CEO John J. Vecchione: “The FBI’s declaration revealed grand jury subpoenas where there was probable cause to believe classified information may have been involved. This litigation is not merely about classified information, but about the government doing everything in its power to recover Secretary Clinton’s records, in accordance with the law. The opinions offered by Mr. Priestap are unfounded under the applicable standard of law and ignore that this suit seeks more than classified material, which was the FBI’s interest.”

The full Motion to Strike is available here.
CoA Institute also filed its reply brief available here.

For information regarding this press release, please contact Zachary Kurz, Director of Communications at CoA Institute: zachary.kurz@causeofaction.org

Media, Press Release Learn More
09/25/2017

Family Business Fights Back Against FTC, Files Appeal After Lower Court Wrongly Granted Injunctive Order

Washington, D.C. – Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) today filed its opening brief in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of a family-run tech support company, Vylah Tec, LLC (“V-Tec”), after the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) used misleading evidence to convince the lower court to grant a damaging injunctive order against the company. V-Tec is a small start-up, owned by Robert Cupo, that provides tech support to customers who have purchased electronic devices from the Home Shopping Network and other shopping channels. V-Tec also generates revenue from selling third-party antivirus and other data security software.

In May, the FTC, in conjunction with the Florida Attorney General’s office, raided the company’s headquarters on suspicion of “deceptive” sales practices, but were unable to uncover any concrete evidence of wrongdoing. In court, the FTC cited two examples of recorded calls that were both mischaracterized. A Florida federal judge granted the government’s request for a preliminary injunctive order (“PI”) that turned the company’s operation over to a third-party receiver and froze the assets of Mr. Cupo and several of his family members. In August, CoA Institute filed a motion to stay the district court’s order. While that decision is still pending, today’s brief is the first in CoA Institute’s appeal of the district court’s decision.

The brief states:

“The PI was granted without benefit of an evidentiary hearing, without application of the proper legal standard for issuing a preliminary injunction, and without application of the proper legal standard for analyzing the likelihood of success on the merits. It was based on untested and facially inadequate factual allegations.

“The Government has conceded that it submitted false evidence and mischaracterized other evidence it offered to the trial court, but it has done nothing to correct the record. To the contrary, the Government insists that the lower court and this Court condone its false evidence to crush a small business and to personally destroy its managers… The Government is seeking to bulldoze V-Tec before this Court can even rule on this appeal. That is not due process, and it certainly is not justice.”

CoA Institute Senior Counsel Cynthia Crawford: “The FTC’s facts in this case are either incomplete or patently false. Without evidence, it was wrong for the district court to grant an order that is draining V-Tec’s finances and destroying its reputation. We urge the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to reexamine the flawed evidence and allow the Cupo family the due process they deserve, before their company is destroyed.”

The full brief can be found here

For information regarding this press release, please contact Zachary Kurz, Director of Communications at CoA Institute: zachary.kurz@causeofaction.org

Media, Press Release Learn More
09/20/2017

D-Link Systems Secures Significant Victory in Court Battle Against FTC

Judge dismisses ‘unfairness’ allegations citing complete lack of consumer harm

SAN FRANCISCO – A federal judge has dismissed three counts against D-Link Systems, Inc. from a complaint brought by the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) involving baseless charges regarding the company’s data security practices for its consumer routers and IP cameras. Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) represents D-Link Systems in its defense.

The Court dismissed the FTC’s Section 5 “unfairness” claim due to the “absence of any concrete facts” supporting the FTC’s allegations of potential consumer harm. The Order states:

The FTC does not identify a single incident where a consumer’s financial, medical or other sensitive personal information has been accessed, exposed or misused in any way, or whose IP camera has been compromised by unauthorized parties, or who has suffered any harm or even simple annoyance and inconvenience from the alleged security flaws in the DLS devices.

In March, Michael Pepson, counsel at CoA Institute, argued before the Court that the case should be dismissed due to, among other things, the lack of facts supporting the government’s claims. Pepson argued that the FTC’s complaint includes only vague, unsubstantiated allegations with no mention of an actual breach of any D-Link product, or any harm to a single consumer.

In response to the ruling, Pepson stated: “We are grateful to the Court for taking the time to hear the arguments, carefully study the questions presented, and issue a well-reasoned decision on D-Link Systems’ motion to dismiss. Cause of Action Institute remains proud to represent D-Link Systems in this litigation.”

For information regarding this press release, please contact Zachary Kurz, Director of Communications at CoA Institute: zachary.kurz@causeofaction.org

Media, Press Release Learn More
09/14/2017

CoA Institute Forces FBI to Reveal New Details of Clinton Email Investigation

Washington D.C. – The FBI has revealed previously undisclosed details outlining the scope of its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email practices as Secretary of State. The disclosure, made Wednesday evening, was a result of Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) convincing the court to release the secret declaration. In August, U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg ruled in favor of CoA Institute ordering the government to produce the full declaration that had been filed ex parte and in camera, meaning only the judge had been able to review it.

The declaration reveals the FBI issued several grand jury subpoenas to allies of Mrs. Clinton in instances where there was probable cause to believe those individuals may have received classified information. These subpoenas were issued in addition to subpoenas to her email service providers. The FBI claims it recovered thousands of emails that had previously not been returned to the State Department.

Cause of Action Institute President and CEO John J. Vecchione: “Americans are finally getting important information about the FBI’s efforts to recover the government emails possessed by Hillary Clinton. It’s amazing that this information was only revealed by this suit and not by Congress, the mainstream press, or the administration.”

The full FBI declaration is available here.

For information regarding this press release, please contact Zachary Kurz, director of communications: zachary.kurz@causeofaction.org

Press Release, Media Learn More