There Should Be a Price to Pay for Knowingly Lying to Consumers
Why TINA.org wants the Supreme Court to address proof of harm in Lanham Act cases.
In March 2020, a class-action lawsuit was filed against iThink Financial Credit Union for allegedly misleadingly promising that it only charges overdraft fees and non-sufficient funds fees on a transaction if an account does not have enough money to cover it when, according to plaintiffs, the credit union charges overdraft fees even when there is enough money to cover a transaction. Plaintiffs also claim that the credit union falsely promises to charge only one fee on a single transaction when, according to the complaint, the credit union charges another fee every time a rejected payment is reprocessed for payment resulting in multiple fees on a single transaction. (Collier et al v. iThink Financial Credit Union f/k/a IBM Southeast Employees’ Credit Union, Case No. 20-cv-80430, S.D. Fl.)
For more of TINA.org’s coverage of banks, click here.
Why TINA.org wants the Supreme Court to address proof of harm in Lanham Act cases.
Letters alert agencies and organizations to company’s improper marketing.
TINA.org discovers some roadblocks to unlocking this purportedly free offer.
New research points to “no.”
Why disclosures are key to protecting informed consumer choice and competition.