The Supreme Court has announced that it has accepted the request of the Third Circuit, in two consolidated cases, to answer certified questions about the Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act, N.J.S.A. 56:12-14 et seq. (“TCCWNA”).  The questions presented are “Is a consumer who receives a contract that does not comply with the Delivery of Household Furniture Regulations (Furniture Delivery Regulations), N.J.A.C. 13:45A-5, but has not suffered any adverse consequences from the noncompliance, an ‘aggrieved consumer’ under the Truth-in-Consumer Con

James v. Global Tellink Corp., 852 F.3d 262 (3d Cir. 2017).  In this putative class action, plaintiffs were inmates at New Jersey correctional facilities.  They signed up with defendants for a service that would allow plaintiffs to telephone loved ones, attorneys, and others outside of the prisons. One plaintiff signed up via defendants’ website, while the others did so through an automated telephone service that used scripts and prompts.  Those who signed up by phone were

Roach v. BM Motoring, LLC, 228 N.J. 163 (2017).  Plaintiffs bought used cars from defendants.  In connection with those purchases, plaintiffs signed Dispute Resolution Agreements (“DRA’s”) that required any disputes to be arbitrated “in accordance with the rules” of the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”).  Several months later, plaintiffs filed for arbitration with the AAA, asserting claims under consumer protection statutes.  The DRA&