| Volume 131 Number 11 |
Subscribe to the Newsletter
Forward this news alert to your family and friends
Helpful Links
Texas Consumer Complaint Center
Credit Reports and Identity Theft
Your Guide to Small Claims Court
Contact Us
1-713-743-2168
The People’s Lawyer’s Tip of the Day
Have you heard about a government program that will pay your monthly bills for an up-front payment or processing fee? It’s a scam. Don’t do it. Take it from me – and the FTC: there is no federal program that pays your monthly bills in exchange for payment of any kind. Click here for more.
Why Some Tax Refunds Are Delayed In 2017
Over a year ago Congress passed the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes (PATH) Act of 2015 and the section of this law that focuses on refunds kicks into effect this year. Under this new law, the IRS must wait until February 15, 2017, to issue refunds to taxpayers who claimed the earned-income tax credit (EITC) or the additional child tax credit (ACTC). Affected taxpayers should expect the IRS to hold their entire refund check. Click here for more.
Your Money
One Rule Could Change Your Financial Future. A 2016 survey by GoBankingRates.com revealed that 69% of Americans had yet to amass $1,000 in savings and that 35% of Americans have no savings at all. Ideally, you should aim to put 10% of each paycheck into savings but starting to save early, even at lesser amounts, is the key to ensuring financial safety. Click here for more.
For the Lawyers
Arbitration provision contained in a warranty brochure included in the box is not enforceable. Plaintiff filed a class action against Samsung, alleging that it made misrepresentations as to the performance of the Galaxy S4 phone. Samsung moved to compel arbitration based on a warranty brochure contained in the phone’s box. Determining that its analysis is governed by California contract, rather than warranty, law, the Ninth Circuit concluded plaintiff did not assent to any agreement in the brochure, nor did he sign or otherwise act in a manner that showed he accepted the arbitration agreement. The court concluded that Samsung failed to demonstrate the applicability of any exception to the general California rule that an offeree’s silence does not constitute consent. The court also found that Samsung's argument that plaintiff agreed to arbitrate his claims by signing the Customer Agreement with Verizon Wireless was meritless. The court explained that Samsung is not a signatory or third party beneficiary to the Customer Agreement between Verizon Wireless and its customer. Norcia v. Samsung Telecommunications (9th Cir) Click here for more.