The People's Lawyer Consumer News Alert
Center for Consumer Law
  Volume 114 Number 6

Subscribe to the Newsletter
Forward this news alert to your family and friends

Helpful Links

Texas Consumer Complaint Center

Your Rights as a Tenant

Credit Reports and Identity Theft

Your Guide to Small Claims Court

Common Q & A’s

Your Money

Scam Alert

Back Issues

Contact Us



The People’s Lawyer’s Tip of the Day

Need something to read? Consider my book, the 8th edition of “Know Your Rights! Answers to Texas Everyday Legal Questions. “ It is available at your local bookstore, or through my website (link  Click here for more.

Amazon Announces New Rules to Cut Down Sharing of Prime Benefits

Apparently some Amazon Prime members are sharing the benefits of their memberships more than Amazon wants. Previously, Amazon allowed a Prime member to share the benefits of membership with up to 4 household members. Amazon has now changed that to allow a member to share their benefits with only one other adult. Apparently to discourage sharing of membership benefits with people not actually part of the household, the new rules allow the person sharing the benefits to make purchases with the member's credit card on Amazon. In addition to the one adult, members can share their membership benefits with up to four children. Click here for more.

Your Money

This space is most often used to help people make sensible decisions about their savings, but what if sometimes the best decision for you is to spend it? We’ve all heard that “you can’t take it with you,” and the link below makes the argument that sometimes money spent which allows you to lead a life rich in experience is money well spent.  Click here for more.

For the Lawyers

Class satisfied Rule 23’s ascertainability requirement. The district court certified a plaintiff class of individuals “who purchased Instaflex within the applicable statute of limitations of the respective Class States for personal use until the date notice is disseminated,” under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3). The Seventh Circuit rejected defendant’s argument that Rule 23(b)(3) implies a heightened ascertainability requirement, noting an implicit requirement under Rule 23 that a class must be defined clearly and that membership be defined by objective criteria rather than by, for example, a class member’s state of mind. In addressing this requirement, courts have sometimes used the term “ascertainability.” Class definitions fail this requirement when they were too vague or subjective, or when class membership was defined in terms of success on the merits (fail-safe classes). This class satisfied “ascertainability” Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC Click here for more.

Share with: Mixx, Digg, Facebook,, reddit, StumbleUpon, MySpace

To stop receiving email news alerts from the Center for Consumer Law, please click here.