Search for: "T-UP v. Consumer Protection" Results 1941 - 1960 of 4,765
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Jan 2017, 4:17 pm by INFORRM
Newspapers Journalism and Regulation iMedia Ethics has looked why BuzzFeed published the Trump Dossier, and why others didn’t. [read post]
10 Jan 2017, 9:22 am by Eric Goldman
Bad things happen when we develop an orthodoxy that content doesn’t deserve to exist even though the First Amendment protects it. * Salsoul v. [read post]
10 Jan 2017, 5:53 am by Dean Freeman
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), which announced recently it was teaming up with U.S. [read post]
6 Jan 2017, 5:50 am by Justin S. Daniel
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) ordered TransUnion and Equifax, two credit reporting agencies, to pay a combined $17.6 million in restitution and $5.5 million in fines for allegedly “deceiving consumers about the usefulness and actual cost of credit scores they sold to consumers. [read post]
3 Jan 2017, 2:06 pm by Ronald Mann
Other consumer advocates join state governments in supporting New York, attempting to ensure that states are free to adopt consumer-protective pricing regulations. [read post]
26 Dec 2016, 4:30 am by Ben
Well Marie-Andree cited that 1879 case  Feist Publications, Inc. v. [read post]
24 Dec 2016, 4:04 am
In one recent instance this has led to High Court proceedings: Property Renaissance Ltd (t/a Titanic Spa) v Stanley Dock Hotel Ltd (t/a Titanic Hotel Liverpool) & Ors [2016] EWHC 3103.Dramatis personaeTitanic Spa (Property Renaissance Ltd) - a luxury spa business which opened in 2005, offers overnight accommodation and had a turnover in 2015 of £4.8 million. [read post]
23 Dec 2016, 4:01 am by Edith Roberts
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a pending cert petition involving an appointments clause challenge to a CFPB enforcement action, arguing that the CFPB director’s “later ratification of his own actions can’t cure the original unconstitutional sin of an unsanctioned prosecution,” and the “Supreme Court should take up Gordon v. [read post]