Jamison v. SUMMER INFANT (USA), INC.

How courts have described this case

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

• collecting cases and rejecting argument that an agency relationship between a manufacturer and immediate seller establishes privity with the consumer in Illinois
• plaintiffs adequately pleaded actual damages by alleging they would not have purchased the product or paid the same price for the product but-for defendant’s deception
• “[T]he omission or concealment of material facts can constitute the ‘deceptive act or practice’ that causes ‘actual damage to the plaintiff.’” (quoting 815 ILCS 505/2)
• “[T]he ICFA applies to the omission of any material information in the conduct of trade or commerce[.]” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• plaintiffs would not have purchased video monitors had they known that they were not encrypted, thereby placing consumers \at serious risk from both a safety and privacy standpoint\
• plaintiffs would not have purchased video monitors had they known that they were not encrypted, thereby placing consumers “at serious risk from both a safety and privacy standpoint”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).