5 ms·

It looks like most of the previous lawsuits were thrown out because the private entity suing didn't have legal standing to bring such a suit. From later in the

by basseq 8y ago

It looks like most of the previous lawsuits were thrown out because the private entity suing didn't have legal standing to bring such a suit. From later in the article: > It seems more like something the FTC or state Attorneys General could go after instead.

howard941 8y ago
Fortunately many states have unfair and deceptive trade practices acts that provides standing, attorneys fees, actual and exemplary/punitive damages. Here is a somewhat dated pdf of each state's UDAP laws https://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/udap/analysis-state-summaries.pdf https://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/udap/analysis-state-summarie...
ABCLAW 8y ago
The article is a steaming pile, written by someone who has no idea what's what. The previous case had standing as an issue because the individual in question was not hurt by the specific alleged fraud. This is not the case in the current litigation. The current litigation is seeking class certification for everyone that has paid for licenses on public works. The article additionally ignores a number of heads of liability which are claimed in the pleading (consumer protection, unjust enrichment). It's notable that fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation isn't claimed directly. I expect they might amend to add that as a fall back once they get better counsel. Instead they've claimed it's a RICO violation for a pattern of fraud amounting to racketeering. Ambitious big dollar claim, likely hoping to ratchet up a settlement amount but it's not clear it'll work out. They're currently represented by a personal injury lawyer who doesn't seem to have much background in the field, and I believe they've left off direct fraud claims due to the cost implications (I don't know know the RoP in the jurisdiction so the cost note is speculation on my part).

5 ms·

It looks like most of the previous lawsuits were thrown out because the private entity suing didn't have legal standing to bring such a suit. From later in the

by basseq 8y ago

howard941 8y ago
Fortunately many states have unfair and deceptive trade practices acts that provides standing, attorneys fees, actual and exemplary/punitive damages. Here is a somewhat dated pdf of each state's UDAP laws https://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/udap/analysis-state-summaries.pdf https://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/udap/analysis-state-summarie...
ABCLAW 8y ago
The article is a steaming pile, written by someone who has no idea what's what. The previous case had standing as an issue because the individual in question was not hurt by the specific alleged fraud. This is not the case in the current litigation. The current litigation is seeking class certification for everyone that has paid for licenses on public works. The article additionally ignores a number of heads of liability which are claimed in the pleading (consumer protection, unjust enrichment). It's notable that fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation isn't claimed directly. I expect they might amend to add that as a fall back once they get better counsel. Instead they've claimed it's a RICO violation for a pattern of fraud amounting to racketeering. Ambitious big dollar claim, likely hoping to ratchet up a settlement amount but it's not clear it'll work out. They're currently represented by a personal injury lawyer who doesn't seem to have much background in the field, and I believe they've left off direct fraud claims due to the cost implications (I don't know know the RoP in the jurisdiction so the cost note is speculation on my part).