Amicus Briefs

Consumer Action is proud to work with plaintiffs' attorneys to file amicus ("friend of the court") briefs in legal cases of importance to the consumer interest.

  • APSCU v. Arne Duncan and US Department of Education
    Consumer and public interest groups urged the courts to uphold the U.S. Department of Education’s gainful employment regulation, which would prevent for-profit colleges from accessing federal student aid if they can’t prove they provide students with adequate tools to find employment. (In June, 2015, the court ruled against the APSCU attempt to block implementation of the rule.)
  • Ardon vs. City of Los Angeles
    A legal challenge held that local governments should not be permitted to retain illegally collected taxes merely because they need the funds to balance their budgets. As it turns out, the California Supreme Court agrees.
  • Bauer, Del Rose, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. US Department of Education
    Consumer Action supports the efforts of defrauded students and state attorneys general who are suing the U.S. Department of Education, and Secretary Betsy DeVos, for delaying the 2016 Borrower Defense rule. The rule is essential to protect students and taxpayers from misconduct by unscrupulous for-profit education programs, and to maintain the integrity of our federal financial aid program.
  • English v Trump & Mulvaney
    Consumer Action joined nine leading organizations in an amicus brief filed to uphold the independence of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
  • FTC v. AT&T Mobility
    The full Ninth Circuit has agreed to rehear the Federal Trade Commission’s data-throttling lawsuit against AT&T, which was dismissed in August after a panel found that the company’s status as a common carrier exempted it from the FTC Act.
  • James Gonzales, et al vs Owens Corning
    Consumer Action joins the National Association of Consumer Advocates and other groups in an amicus brief in support of reversing a district court decision in a case alleging fault with Owens Corning roof shingles.
  • Nelson v. Great Lakes Educational Loan Services
    As record numbers of Americans struggle to afford their student loans, private enforcement of state consumer protection laws is critical to hold student loan servicers accountable and to redress the harm done to borrowers impacted by illegal servicer conduct.
  • New York v. Actavis PLC and Forest Laboratories LLC
    Consumer Action and other public interest organizations filed a brief in a lawsuit against Actavis and its subsidiary Forest Laboratories aiming to stop the drug company from discontinuing the widely used Alzheimer's drug Namenda.
  • PHH Corp. v CFPB
    Consumer Action joined coalition partners and state attorneys general from around the country in an amicus brief asking the court to uphold the rule that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is constitutional and that its director can be fired by the president for cause only.
  • Sorrell v. IMS Health
    Sorrell v. IMS Health centers on the sale of drug prescription data.
  • State of Maryland v. Department of Education
    Consumer Action joined advocates in filing an amicus brief in support of the gainful employment rule. The Department of Education is illegally refusing to enforce the gainful employment rule, putting students in harms way, particularly those targeted by predatory, for-profit colleges, such as students who are veterans, people of color, from low-income families, and single parents.
  • Treiber, et al., v. Aspen Dental Management, et al
    The Aspen Dental clinic chain is charged with harming unwary consumers by pressuring them into expensive and prolonged treatment plans, which must be paid for upfront.
  • United States v. Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI)
    Consumer Action has joined an amicus brief in support of the Department of Justice in its effort to ensure that powerful music publishers and performing rights organizations are held to a seven-decades-old antitrust consent decree.
  • Viacom v. YouTube
    Consumer Action joins an amicus filing supporting YouTube-Google in an appeals case to determine that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) law indemnifies online companies like YouTube when the content is removed upon notification by the copyright holder.
 
 

Search

Quick Menu

Facebook FTwitter T
 

About Menu

Consumer Help Desk

Advocacy