The Oyez Project: Economic Activity Issues - Consumer Protection Decisions

American Express Co. v. Koerner

No details yet.

Anderson Bros. Ford v. Valencia

No details yet.

Beach v. Ocwen Federal Bank

Can homeowners who face foreclosure rescind a mortgage loan on the ground that the lender violated the federal truth-in-lending law?

No. In a unanimous decision, announced by Justice David H. Souter, the Court ruled no such defense could be raised after the three-year deadline of the federal Truth in Lending Act expires.

Ciba Corp. v. Weinberger

No details yet.

F. T. C. v. National Casualty Co.

No details yet.

FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.

Does the Food and Drug Administration have the authority to regulate tobacco products as "drugs" and "devices" under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act?

No. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court held that "Congress has not given the FDA the authority to regulate tobacco products as customarily marketed." The ruling was based on the FDCA as a whole and in conjunction with Congress' subsequent tobacco-specific legislation. "By no means do we question the seriousness of the problem that the FDA has sought to address," Justice O'Connor wrote for the majority. Nonetheless, Justice O' Connor wrote, "Congress, for better or for worse, has created a distinct regulatory scheme for tobacco products, squarely rejected proposals to give the FDA jurisdiction over tobacco, and repeatedly acted to preclude any agency from exercising significant policymaking authority in the area."

Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Milhollin

No details yet.

Heintz v. Jenkins

No details yet.

Household Credit Services v. Pfennig

Was the Federal Reserve Board's exclusion of over-limit fees from the definition of "finance charges" a reasonable interpretation of the Truth in Lending Act?

Yes. In a unanimous decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court found that the Board's definition of "finance charge" was reasonable under the language of TILA. Because neither side challenged the authority of the Board to interpret the act (Pfennig just challenged its end result as unreasonable), under Chevron USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837, the Court would have to find that the Board's regulation was clearly contrary to the unambiguous intent of Congress in order to overturn it. Finding that Congress's intent with respect to over-limit fees was ambiguous, Justice Thomas wrote that the regulation was entitled to deference and the credit company's reliance on it could therefore not be punished.

Koons Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc. v. Nigh, Bradley

Could parties who suffered no actual damages recover more than the Truth in Lending Act's original $1,000 cap because of subsequent amendments to the act?

No. In an 8-1 judgment delivered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that a 1995 TILA amendment did not change the original limit on violations involving personal-property loans. Congress intended the amendment to raise the minimum and maximum recoveries for closed-end loans secured by real property. Congress had not sought to remove the $1,000 cap on loans secured by personal property.

Mourning v. Family Publications Service, Inc.

No details yet.

Perez v. United States

No details yet.

TRW v. Andrews

Does the Fair Credit Reporting Act's two-year statute of limitations governing actions to enforce any liability created by the act commence to run only upon a party's discovery of alleged violations of the act?

No. In an opinion delivered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that a discovery rule does not govern section 1681p of FCRA, as that section explicitly delineated the exceptional case in which discovery triggered the two-year limitation and Adelaide's case does not fall within the exceptional category. The Court reasoned that it was not at liberty to make Congress' explicit exception the general rule. Justice Antonin Scalia filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Clarence Thomas joined.

United States v. Bacto-Unidisk

No details yet.

United States v. Generix Drug Corp.

No details yet.

United States v. Park

No details yet.

United States v. Rutherford

No details yet.

Usv Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Weinberger

No details yet.

Weinberger v. Bentex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

No details yet.

Weinberger v. Hynson, Westcott & Dunning

No details yet.