CompuCredit marketed a subprime credit card under the brand name Aspire Visa to consumers with low or weak credit scores through massive direct-mail solicitations and the internet. CompuCredit marketed the card and the cards were issued by Columbus Bank and Trust (collectively “Credit Providers”).
Greenwood and her fellow plaintiffs (“Consumers”) allege CompuCredit marketed the card by representing to consumers it could be used to “rebuild your credit,” “rebuild poor credit,” and “improve your credit rating.” Consumers allege the promotional materials noted there “was no deposit required,” and that consumers would immediately receive $300 in available credit when they received the card. In fact, they allege, Credit Providers charged a $29 finance charge, a monthly $6.50 account maintenance fee, and a $150 annual fee, assessed immediately against the $300 limit before the consumer received the card. In aggregate, the card had $257 in fees the first year. Although the promotional material mentioned the fees, it did so in small print amidst other information in the advertisement, and not in proximity to its representations that no deposit was required. Consumers each applied for and received an Aspire card, and were charged these fees. Consumers allege the Credit Providers’ actions constitute several violations of the CROA and of California’s Unfair Competition Law.
Before receiving the Aspire Visa credit card, each Consumer received a mailing entitled “Pre-Approved Acceptance Certificate.” The Acceptance Certificate includes the following paragraph:
By signing, I request an Aspire Visa card and ask that an account be opened for me. I certify that everything I have stated in the Acceptance Certificate is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I have read and agree to the be bound by the “Summary of Credit Terms” and “Terms of Offer” printed on the enclosed insert, which insert includes a discussion of arbitration applicable to my account, and is incorporated here by reference.
One Consumer mailed in her acceptance, one applied over the internet, and the other applied over the phone.
Judge(s): Kleinfeld, Tashima, Thomas
Jurisdiction: U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Related Categories: Civil Procedure , Civil Remedies , Finance / Banking
|Circuit Court Judge(s)|
|Trial Court Judge(s)|
|Plaintiff Lawyer(s)||Plaintiff Law Firm(s)|
|Adrian Barnes||Gilbert & Sackman|
|Jay Smith||Gilbert & Sackman|
|Laurie Traktman||Gilbert & Sackman|
|Richard R. Rosenthal, Attorney||Law Offices of Richard R. Rosenthal, PC|
|Kasie Braswell||Taylor Martino Zarzaur PC|
|William Copeland||Taylor Martino Zarzaur PC|
|Steven Martino||Taylor Martino Zarzaur PC|
|U. W. Clemon||White Arnold Andrews & Dowd PC|
|Gregory Hawley||White Arnold Andrews & Dowd PC|
|Christopher Nicholson||White Arnold Andrews & Dowd PC|
|Defendant Lawyer(s)||Defendant Law Firm(s)|
|Susan Germaise||McGuireWoods LLP|
|David Hartsell||McGuireWoods LLP|
|James McGuire||Morrison & Foerster LLP|
|Tim O'Brien||Morrison & Foerster LLP|