|

Consumer advocate groups have long been saying the inclusion of arbitration agreements in all sorts of contracts, from cell phone agreements to student loan contracts, unfairly benefits corporations while harming consumers. Corporate advocates claim consumers also benefit from these arbitration agreements, which has turned the argument into a bit of “he said/she said” issue, but the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) might be able to put the issue to rest.

The bureau published a report in March 2015 that found that mandatory arbitration clauses benefit companies while harming consumers.

An arbitration clause is an agreement included in a contract that states any dispute between the parties will take place in arbitration, rather than in a court of law. Arbitration is handled by private, for-profit arbitration companies, does not provide an explanation for the ruling, and it prohibits appeals and class actions. Because arbitrators are companies that are in business to make money, they’re not always as neutral as court judges. Although there are some arbitration companies that have a reputation for being fair and unbiased, most of them can be influenced by clients that bring in a lot of business for them, even if they’re not consciously aware of this bias.

Arbitration was designed as a way for businesses to handle disputes between themselves without crowding the courts, but in recent years companies have abused the option for arbitration by including clauses in their contracts with their customers and employees that force all disputes into arbitration. It’s hard enough for an individual to get a fair trial in the courts when fighting a large corporation with vast resources, but the arbitration system makes it considerably more difficult for individuals to get a fair hearing. Continue reading ›

|

 

 

Our Chicago automobile fraud and Lemon law attorneys near Evanston and Lombard have experience representing victims of  odometer roll backs, title washing, fake or improper certifications of rebuilt wrecks and other used car scams. We bring individual and class actions suits for defective cars with common design defects and auto dealer fraud and other car dealer scams such as selling rebuilt wrecks as certified used cars or misrepresenting a car as being in good condition when it is rebuilt wreck or had the odometer rolled back. We also see cases where new car dealers conceal that the car has been in accident while in their possession or used car dealers who put duck tape in back of the check engine light to conceal serious engine or emission problems.  Super Lawyers has selected our DuPage, Kane, Kendall, Lake, Will and Cook County Illinois auto-fraud, car dealer fraud and lemon law lawyers as among the top 5% in Illinois. We only collect our fee if we win or settle your case. For a free consultation call our Chicago class action lawyers at our toll free number 630-333-0333 or contact us on the web by clicking here.

|

The recent natural movement that has led many people towards organic foods has spread to other areas of our everyday lives. Many people now reach for organic soaps and moisturizers as well as local, organic produce.

Deodorant in particular has seen an increased demand for natural options, especially since claims arose years ago that conventional deodorant is linked to cancer. The validity of those claims is still up for debate, but what many customers of Old Spice say is not up for debate are the severe rashes and burns they’ve allegedly received as a result of the company’s various deodorant products.

According to a recent consumer class action lawsuit against Procter & Gamble, the company’s Old Spice deodorant products have left serious rashes and chemical burns on hundreds, maybe even thousands, of customers. The class action lawsuit was filed in March and is seeking $5 million in damages. Continue reading ›

|

Most copyright laws in the United States come with a time limit. In the case of music, publishing rights can be recaptured after 56 years for any music that was written before 1978. For songs written after 1978, one only has to wait 35 years before the publishing rights can be recaptured.

The ability to recapture the publishing rights to older music certainly makes a strong case for living a long life, something musicians seem to be less likely to achieve the more successful they are. Nevertheless, Paul McCartney is one of the few original rock stars to live long enough to reclaim the publishing rights to some of his most famous songs.

According to Billboard, McCartney has begun taking steps to reclaim the publishing rights of some of the most famous songs he wrote and performed when he was with The Beatles. McCartney is not seeking the rights to all of the songs The Beatles are known for, since many of them were written or co-written by John Lennon. According to documents filed with the U.S. Copyright Office in December, McCartney is seeking to reclaim the publishing rights of 32 of the famous band’s songs. Continue reading ›

|

When someone files a lawsuit, it’s rarely just about the money. In many cases it’s about an individual or company participating in illegal practices and the plaintiff wants to make sure that issue is addressed. Some complaints include a request for the court to file an injunction to prevent the defendant from ever participating in the illegal behavior again, but sometimes the defendant remedies the problem before the court can act.

On its face, that may seem like a good idea, because it cuts off the allegations at the head, but a company changing its practices can actually work against it if they’re facing a lawsuit. By changing its practices, the defendant is essentially admitting that it was doing something wrong. Plaintiffs who may have been injured before the company changed their policies now have a stronger claim against the company.

One such case of this is the class action lawsuit filed against Rhapsody, the music streaming company. The lawsuit is very similar to one that was previously filed against Spotify, a different music streaming company. Continue reading ›

|

Good Morning To You Productions v. Warner/Chappell Music Inc.

When you gather with friends or family to celebrate birthdays, you probably never considered that that famous song you sing them was “owned” by anyone. No worries; you can now sing “Happy Birthday” to someone in public without potentially being sued for royalties. A federal district court in California has held that Warner/Chappell Music, Inc. can no longer claim a copyright on the song. The ruling is part of a class action settlement in which the music publishing giant will have to repay $14 million in copyright infringement awards it has collected over the years.

The song, which is the most widely recognized composition in the English language, was allegedly composed in the late 19th century by a schoolteacher and her sister, and was originally entitled “Good Morning to All” and contained different lyrics. The “Happy Birthday” lyrics and music were first put into print beginning in 1911, but neither the words nor the melody were ever definitively or consistently attributed to anyone. The rights to the song were acquired from the sisters by the Clayton Summy Co., which was much later acquired by Warner. Continue reading ›

|

Everyone loves a good deal and retailers know that. It is extremely popular to see online retailers include a price for an item that is higher than the price they’re selling it for. Names for the higher price range from “suggested retail price” to “list price” to the more vague “estimated value”. By listing a higher price next to their own price, the retailers give the impression that they’re giving their customers a deal, but how do customers really know they’re getting a deal?

Many customers simply take the retailer’s word for it while others take the age-old advice for customers to do their research, shop around, and compare prices. Recent comparisons of “discounted” items on sites like Amazon and Overstock.com failed to find any retailer that sold the item for the list price. Comparisons also found that the “list price” varied from site to site, even when the actual price it was sold for was the same at each retailer.

Because giving customers the impression they’re getting a deal can make them more likely to click that “Buy” button, many customers feel deceived when they find out they paid the same price as everyone else at other retailers. This sense of betrayal has resulted in several consumer class action lawsuits with allegations of false advertising. Continue reading ›

|

Root Consulting Inc. v. William Insull, 2016 WL 806556 (N.D. Ill., March 2, 2016)

An officer and shareholder of a closely held corporation has a fiduciary duty not to compete with the company even if he is forced out of the organization.

William I. was sued by Root Consulting Inc. and fellow shareholders for breach of fiduciary duty after he formed a competing company and solicited business from Root customers, while still a vice president and shareholder of Root (Root Consulting Inc. v. William Insull (2016 WL 806556)). Root is an Illinois-based information technology company with operations in Illinois and Texas; William I. is a Texas resident. William I. claimed his employment ended in July 2013 when he was “frozen out” (or constructively terminated) by the other shareholders, and therefore he had no fiduciary duty to refrain from competition. However, U.S. District Judge Robert Blakey found that he remained vice president and 47.5% shareholder until February of 2014, and that he continued to do work for Root after his alleged termination date.

Under Illinois law, corporate officers owe a fiduciary duty to their corporation and to its shareholders and may not enrich themselves at the expense of the corporation. Under the “corporate opportunity” doctrine, a fiduciary cannot take personal advantage of business opportunities that arise from and rightfully belong to the corporation. The officer’s resignation does not relieve him of liability if he acquired the opportunity before his employment ended. Continue reading ›

|

Ask almost anyone what a donut is and they’ll most likely describe it as a round pastry that’s fried and then usually glazed with sugar and sometimes various toppings, such as frosting and/or sprinkles. The definition usually consists of a hole in the center, unless the pastry is filled, but two bakeries have started making square donuts and are now fighting over the name “Square Donuts.”

A bakery in Terre Haute, Indiana (called “Square Donuts”) has been making donuts in a box-like form since the 1960s. When Family Express, a convenience store based out of Valparaiso, Indiana, started making their own square donuts in 2005, the Square Donuts sent a cease and desist letter, saying the name “square donuts” was proprietary.

Family Express responded that they did not think their use of the term “square donuts” constituted infringement. They didn’t hear back from Square Donuts so they continued making their box-like pastries. Family Express markets these oddly-shaped donuts on their website as one of their main offerings, saying they’re made every day before being delivered to all their outlets. They even posted a video that shows how the donuts are made, including a machine that cuts the pastries into squares.

The company talks up its oddly-shaped donuts as a unique attraction, despite the fact it has turned out that the shape of their donuts is not so unique after all. In fact, Family Express was about forty years behind another the Terre Haute-based bakery in making and marketing donuts in a new shape. Far from being the first to think of this, Family Express isn’t even the first in the state to make and advertise square donuts, much less the first in the country. Continue reading ›

|

The U.S. Constitution gives every citizen the right to privacy, but it also grants the right to freedom of speech and courts frequently have to walk a fine line between the two. The law gets especially difficult to navigate when public figures sue journalists for defamation.

The writers of the Constitution recognized the value in not restricting the right of journalists to investigate and report on whatever they found newsworthy. Because of this, the law requires public figures to bear a higher burden of proof than private citizens when filing for defamation, including evidence that the publisher new the statements were false and made them with the intention of harming the public figure’s career.

The idea behind the law is that it is in the best interests of the public to have access to information on public figures. This is especially true of a democracy in which the public should have the right to know what the people they’re voting for are really up to, but the term “public figure” now includes all sorts of entertainers and athletes, in addition to politicians. 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