A recent Wall Street Journal article duly notes that the Trump administration has taken some hits from consumer advocates. One chief complaint alleges its policy of pulling back on protective measures that guard against financial fraud via a clearly friendly business stance that undermines consumer safeguards.
We stressed a few fundamental points regarding qui tam whistleblower lawsuits that individuals file on behalf of the federal government under the U.S. False Claims Act in a recent post. We noted in our January 31 entry that such filings seem to be spiking these days. Moreover, "they feature in stories involving federal agencies and entities of virtually every type and dimension."
We noted a clear reality concerning fraud claims commenced under the U.S. False Claims Act in a recent blog post at the pro-consumer website of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah (with offices in Connecticut and several other states spanning the country).
The U.S. False Claims Act, which addresses fraudulent claims against federal entities, has clearly stood the test of time. The legislation dates back to Abraham Lincoln's presidency and is still routinely invoked in cases probing civil and criminal wrongdoing in the fraud realm.
Even if you weren't personally involved, you might still empathize with owners of Apple iPhones reporting that their aging smartphones suffered from slower response times owing to purposeful company policy.
“Someone ought to put a stop to that,” you may be thinking. Perhaps a company is selling appliances with dangerous defects. Maybe a manufacturing plant dumped chemical waste into the town’s water supply. Whatever the situation may be, people are suffering unfair consequences. It might be time for a class-action lawsuit.
Have you returned a product back to the store – only to find you can only receive store credit? This can be frustrating, especially if you don’t want to continue shopping there, but there’s nothing you can do to change the policy.
The Equifax breach earlier this year—which enabled hackers to steal the personal information (Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses etc.) of nearly half the American population—is a large-scale example of identity theft. The personal impacts on you if you suffer this kind of violation can be even more devastating than you might suspect.
When a consumer feels their bank has treated them unfairly or has not acted right towards them, what avenues they have for pursuing remedies depends on a variety of things. This includes what clauses the contract they have with the bank contains.
When asked to name a financial institution that has had a flatly awful past year from a publicity and consumer trust standpoint, it wouldn't be too surprising to see a poll of respondents come up with Wells Fargo, would it?