INDOOR BILLBOARD WASHINGTON, INC. v. Integra Telecom of Washington, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the voluntary payment doctrine was not a defense in a cramming case where the court construed the statute liberally in favor of plaintiffs
• holding that, to satisfy the causation element, a CPA plaintiff must “establish that but for the defendant’s unfair or deceptive act or practice the plaintiffs injury would not have occurred”
• holding that a claimant must establish all five elements to prevail
• noting that the risk of foreseeable harm from inadequate data security is sufficient under the FTC Act, and an unfair act need not be the most proximate cause of an injury
• explaining that to prove the causation element 24 1 of a CPA claim, a “plaintiff must establish that, but for the defendant’s unfair or deceptive practice, 2 the plaintiff would not have suffered an injury”
• rejecting the “argument that 14 [CPA] causation may be established merely by a showing that money was lost”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).