The People's Lawyer Consumer News Alert | |||
![]() |
|||
|
|||
Subscribe to the Newsletter 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 DaySometimes you just can’t resolve your consumer problems yourself and need help. Well help is here. The Texas Consumer Complaint Center can help you with just about any type of consumer problem. Contact us at www.texasccc.com EpiPen expands auto-injector recall to U.S.A defective part may cause the injector to fail. Your MoneyCollege savings plans and other good accounts for saving for your kids Opening a savings account in a child's name may seem like a really smart move, a way to give a little one a head start on a lifetime of thrift. However, it's a decision that you might come to regret when college years approach. Picking the wrong savings vehicle for your children's future college cash needs could cost them thousands in avoidable taxes and missed financial aid. Because financial aid is determined based on income and assets from the year prior to applying for aid -- in most cases, the student's junior year in high school -- students with sizable savings in their name could end up losing a large sum of free college money. Fortunately, there are several ways for parents to save that will not put their children's future financial aid in jeopardy. Here are four places to safely stockpile cash: (1) 529 college plans; (2) prepaid tuition plans; UGMA and UTMA accounts; and (4) Roth IRA. Click here for more. For the LawyersNew York law prohibiting credit card surcharge regulates speech. Merchants challenged a New York law that requires single pricing and prohibits imposing a credit card surcharge. The District Court ruled in favor of the merchants. It read the statute as “draw[ing a] line between prohibited ‘surcharges’ and permissible ‘discounts’ based on words and labels, rather than economic realities.” The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the judgment of the District Court with instructions to dismiss the merchants’ claims. The court held that price regulation alone regulates conduct, not speech, the Court of Appeals concluded that the law did not violate the First Amendment. The Supreme Court found that the statute in fact regulated speech. The Court held that because the Court of Appeals concluded otherwise, it did not determine whether the law survives First Amendment scrutiny. The Supreme Court noted that on remand the Court of Appeals should analyze the law as a speech regulation. Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, (Mar. 29, 2017). Click here for more. |
||
To stop receiving email news alerts from the Center for Consumer Law, please click here. |