Hines v. Bank of America Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that deceptive citizen petitions to the FDA as well as fraudulent representations to the USPTO are actionable under this subsection of the CCPA, and that the deceptive conduct does not need to be aimed at consumers
• holding plaintiff stated a claim under Arizona law because “[i]n paying supra-competitive prices for DDAVP, consumers arguably relied” upon misrepresentations
• refusing to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claim because “New Hampshire commerce and citizens of the state were affected by [the] [defendants’ allegedly deceptive conduct”
• permitting indirect purchaser claims under the NDTPA and noting that “any victim of consumer fraud may bring a civil action” under the NDTPA
• finding allegations of fraudulent acts in the antitrust context stated a claim under Nevada’s consumer protection law
• denying motion to dismiss unjust enrichment claim becausé “despite not having direct dealings (contractual or otherwise) with Defendants, Plaintiffs plausibly conferred some benefit on Defendants, albeit indirectly”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).