Follow Us
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In the past several years, plaintiffs’ firms have threatened or brought class actions against different companies under New Jersey’s Truth-in-Consumer Contract Warranty and Notice Act, N.J.S.A. §§ 56:12-14, et seq. (TCCWNA). This statute applies to a “consumer or prospective consumer” who is offered or enters a “written consumer contract” that “includes any provision that violates any clearly established legal right of a consumer” under state or federal law “at the time the offer is made or the consumer contract is signed … .” N.J.S.A. § 56:12-15. Relevant to product manufacturers, resellers, lessees or servicers, the Act applies to any “seller [or] lessor” and defines a “consumer” as “any individual who buys, leases, [or] borrows any … property or service which is primarily for personal, family or household purposes.” Id. A company that violates TCCWNA is liable for a civil penalty of not less than $100 or actual damages, or both, at the election of the consumer, together with attorney fees and court costs. N.J.S.A. § 56:12-17.
*May exclude premium content
Maximizing Future Medical Damages in Paralysis Cases
By Mitch Warnock
When you take a catastrophic injury case involving paralysis, it is important to have a thorough understanding of the problems and pitfalls. In this article, the author explores, from personal experience, the different types of future expenses the client can expect to incur.
Genetic Labeling: Legal Uncertainty for Pharma Product Liability
By Shannon E. McClure and Whitney Mayer
The FDA’s recent approval of 23andMe’s direct-to-consumer genetic test to identify genes associated with 10 common diseases and disorders could result in a widespread expansion of patients armed with individualized health information. This expansion of genetic information in the hands of consumers potentially impacts regulatory and litigation issues for pharmaceutical companies.
By ljnstaff
Discussion of major rulings out of Texas and California.
Exclusion of Evidence: The FDA's 510K Process
By Janice G. Inman
In a drug or medical device injury case, one of the defense's most potent arguments often is that the product in question underwent FDA approval. But when a device is approved for sale to the public through the FDA's 510(k) process, the rigorous safety and efficacy analysis required of new and unique medical devices has not been undertaken.
Copyright © ALM Global, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
