Firm Logo

The Legal Intelligencer: Consumer Class Actions on the Rise

By: Anapol Weiss

Anapol Weiss’ growing consumer class action practice was highlighted in a Legal Intelligencer article published today.

Firm Shareholder Sol Weiss told reporter Lizzy McLellan that consumer class actions are on the rise, as both federal and state courts have recently been more receptive to class action suits. “These are cases that are making the big corporations act responsibly and the best way is through class litigation,” Weiss said. “There’s a heightened -awareness for consumer protection in the face of some pretty egregious conduct.”

With a team of five attorneys working full-time on class action cases – at least half of which involve consumer protection issues – the firm’s class action portfolio continues to grow. Anapol Weiss Shareholder David Senoff joined the firm late last year and is spearheading numerous class actions over consumer issues and insurance coverage disputes. Senoff has worked closely with Weiss for a number of years, including as Co-Lead Class Counsel in the “Kids for Cash” civil rights litigation that generated $25 million for the juvenile victims in that case.

Senoff serves as Co-Lead Counsel in a class action involving two Pennsylvania McDonald’s franchise owners who violated the law by requiring thousands of employees to be paid with payroll debit cards brimming with fees. He was recently appointed lead counsel in a case involving the alleged denial of a grocery store chain of the use of the store’s own discount cards to customers who were participants of the Women Infants and Children nutrition program.

The firm also recently filed two class action lawsuits in Luzerne County court along with attorney Michael J. Cefalo. The cases allege certain retail gas stations failed to distinguish whether the higher credit card price per gallon of gas applied to customers using both credit and debit cards or simply credit cards. One of the class actions was filed against CITGO Petroleum Corp. and claims the pricing the company provided was “deceptive and confusing” and misrepresented the lower cash price by failing to show on its signs that the lower price excluded purchases made with debit cards.