|

With the help of automated dialers, companies can now reach many customers all at once, via their telephones, to inform them of new products or services. These phone calls are often unwanted though, and even more so when the customers are the ones footing the bill. When everyone was using landlines, the person or company making the phone call was the one who paid for it, so although promotional calls were annoying, they never cost the customers anything. Now they can cost money and also invade privacy and waste time.

When cell phones became more common, customers were made to pay for the calls they received as well as the calls they made. This meant that some customers actually had to pay for the unwanted phone calls they got from various companies trying to sell their wares. In order to protect customers from this situation and to end the annoyance and invasion of privacy injuries if the practice could be deterred, legislators developed the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) which made it illegal for companies to contact customers via their cell phones in a non-emergency situation, unless the customers provided their express permission for the company to do so. Continue reading ›

|

Anyone who runs for office would be well-advised to prepare themselves for some mud-slinging. Anyone who lives in the United States cannot help but be exposed to political candidates accusing each other of various indiscretions and dishonesties. These harmful statements are allowed to go unchecked because of the freedom of speech granted to all citizens of the United States under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Although intentionally defaming an individual can be punished under the law, there are limits to the instances in which this can happen. Most courts will protect language referring to a public figure, such as a celebrity or politician, because allowing free speech about public figures is considered to be in the public’s best interest. Promoting free discussion helps keep citizens informed about people and events that could potentially affect them.  Continue reading ›

|

Covenant Not To Compete Enforceable or Not — Factors to Consider?: Reliable Fire Equip. Co. v. Arredondo (2011 IL 111871).

“Non-Compete Agreements: Are they Iron Clad?”

In Illinois, the standard for enforcing non-compete agreements has changed in recent years. Prior to a landmark decision in 2011, Illinois courts generally enforced non-competes that were sufficiently limited in scope, duration and geography, as long as the employer seeking to enforce the agreement could show that enforcement was necessary to protect a legitimate business interest. Courts generally found that there were only two legitimate business interests in need of protection: confidential information, and near-permanent customer relationships. Continue reading ›

|

Those in debt know what a hassle it can be to deal with phone calls from debt collectors. They can be relentless, often because they have to be, but when they step outside the bounds of the law, then the debt collectors may be the ones that have to pay up. If debt collectors use automated dialing systems to call people on their cell phones, they may be in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

The TCPA was enacted to protect consumers from the the invasion of privacy, annoyance and waste of time, or  having to pay for calls they receive from companies using automated dialers. These calls are disruptive and can cost money. When cell phones became more popular many users were charged for the calls they received, as well as the ones they made. This meant that promotional calls that companies sent out to many customers using autodialing systems were not only annoying customers, they were costing them money if they don’t have unlimited plans. The TCPA made it illegal for companies to use autodialing systems to contact customers in non-emergency situations without the customers’ express consent. Since the law has been enacted, plaintiffs and defendants have argued over what constitutes consent and the definition of an auto-dialing system. Continue reading ›

|

In the United States, the law states that anyone accused of committing a crime is innocent until proven guilty. Unfortunately, the public has a tendency to make up its own mind before all of the facts are available. Because of this, a lawsuit, if its allegations are untrue or not based on evidence, can in certain instances do serious damage to the reputation of a person or corporation, even if the lawsuit is ultimately unsuccessful.

One example of this is defendants who are accused of sexual assault. Just the accusation is enough to render the defendant a social leper. When a person’s reputation has sustained severe damage as a result of false accusations made outside the context of lawsuit, that person has the option of recovering those damages by filing a defamation lawsuit.

The problem with defamation lawsuits is that the courts have to walk a fine line between protecting the rights of the individual and protecting the right to free speech. Generally, private citizens have a higher chance of recovering damages from a defamation lawsuit, as the right to discuss public figures is considered to be in the best interest of the public. However, if the plaintiff can prove that the defamatory statements were false, and that the defendant knew they were false, courts will generally rule in favor of the plaintiff.

When a teacher is accused of sexually assaulting a student, it can be very difficult, if not impossible, for that teacher to ever find work again. As a result, a teacher who is wrongly accused of sexual assault, if the accusations are published outside the confines of a privileged setting such as a lawsuit or criminal complaint, can file a defamation lawsuit to recover damages for lost employment opportunities. This is exactly what Peter Ludlow, a philosophy professor at Northwestern University, has done.  The student involved contests these claims. Continue reading ›

|

Advances in technology have done many wonderful things for us, but they have also made life more frustrating in some ways. For example, using automated dialing equipment, companies can now call or text many people at once at very little expense. Unfortunately, this is not only annoying for customers, it can also get expensive for some consumers and wastes time dealing with junk, unwanted messages and calls.

Before cell phones, the person or company making the call would be the one to pay for it. With the invention of cell phones though, telephone companies started charging customers for the calls they received. The result was that some customers were paying for calls they did not want to receive and were also having to waste time dealing with them. To remedy this invasion of privacy, legislators introduced the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which makes it illegal to contact someone on their cell phone in a non-emergency situation without the person’s express permission to do so. Despite this law, companies continue to use automated dialing systems to reach customers with unwanted calls and text messages.

According to a recent class action lawsuit, the San Diego Chargers NFL franchise allegedly violated the TCPA by allegedly using automated dialing systems to make unsolicited calls to sell tickets to customers. The lawsuit was filed by Paul Story who alleges he received unsolicited phone calls on his cell phone from a phone number that was associated with websites operated by the Chargers Football Company, LLC. Story alleges he never provided any signed authorization to anyone that permitted the football company to contact him on his cell phone for non-emergency purposes. Continue reading ›

|

Many people believe that decisions made in courtrooms have little to do with anyone other than the people directly involved in the lawsuits, but that is not the case. When courts make a ruling, they have to consider not only the circumstances of the case before them, but how their ruling will affect other people in similar situations across the country.

One example of people misunderstanding the far-reaching implications of court decisions is right-wingers claiming that class action lawsuits are “frivolous” because they only benefit the attorneys representing the plaintiffs. People might assume this because the plaintiffs’ attorneys often take large cuts settlements and awards from class action lawsuits, while each individual plaintiff’s award is relatively small, but that doesn’t mean the rulings don’t benefit the plaintiffs or others. Just because a plaintiff suffers damage less than the cost of bringing a lawsuit, does not mean that their loss is insubstantial. For many people, a few hundred dollars could mean months of savings. Not to mention the numerous injunctions that come out of class actions, preventing future harm coming to any workers or consumers. Continue reading ›

|

No sooner does Toyota recover from the fallout of its defective brake lawsuits, then the company is faced with more consumer class action lawsuits. This time consumers allege the company installed defective dashboards in its automobiles that melt when exposed to the sun over long periods of time. The lawsuits allege that the melting dashboards took on a glossy surface that limited driver visibility. The lawsuits also allege that, because the damage took place over time, the drivers were not made aware of the defect until after the warranty on their vehicles had already expired, leaving them to pay for Toyota’s mistake.

The most recent lawsuit against the car company was filed by Melissa Graham in South Carolina and includes model years 2007 through 2009 Camrys, as well as 2006 through 2008 Lexus IS and ES vehicles. Another lawsuit dealing with the same defect had already been filed in Florida, but that lawsuit deals only with the Lexus models. Continue reading ›

|

Shareholders are not philanthropists. They are investors who expect to see a return on the money they put into a company. Because companies have a vested interest in attracting shareholders, laws have been put in place to make sure they act fairly and honestly when communicating with their shareholders about the state of the company. This generally means requiring companies to reveal the state of their finances, market value, any legal issues they may be having that could affect their profits, etc.

Before handing over large sums of money to the control of another, it makes sense that shareholders would want to make sure their money is in safe hands. If it turns out the shareholders were deceived or lied to, filing a lawsuit against the company for fraud and/or breach of fiduciary duties is common. Unfortunately, thanks to a new ruling by the Delaware Supreme Court, shareholders have a new reason to hesitate before taking their grievances to the courts. Continue reading ›

|

Does Red Bull really give you wings? According to two recent consumer class action lawsuits against the maker of the energy drink, it does not. Although most of us don’t consider it a basis for a lawsuit when we fail to grow wings after drinking Red Bull, the lawsuits do allege that Red Bull’s advertisements violate a number of New York state laws.

The energy company creates advertisements claiming that the drink improves “performance, concentration and reaction speed”. However, according to the class action lawsuits, there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that the ingredients in a can of Red Bull provide “any more benefit to consumers than a caffeine tablet or cup of coffee.” The lawsuits, which were filed in New York City, are seeking compensation for damages lost for consumers who paid a higher price for Red Bull’s products than they would have paid for “simpler and less expensive caffeine-only products”. Continue reading ›

Contact Information
Chicago Office
19 S LaSalle St #702
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: 630-333-0333
Mailing Address
17W220 22nd St #410
Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
Phone: 630-333-0333 Please direct all mail correspondence to our Oakbrook Terrace address.
Highland Park Office
189 Whistler Rd
Highland Park, IL 60035
Phone: 630-710-4990
We accept the following credit cards
Credit Cards Accepted
We accept payment via Venmo at: @L-A-LAW

Please direct all mail correspondence to our Oakbrook Terrace address.

Phone: 603-333-0333
Visit our site: chicagobusinesslawfirm.com

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Lubin Austermuehle, P.C.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design