What was the case of Scharfstein v BP West Coast Products LLC?
Scharfstein v. BP West Coast Products, LLC Scharfstein v. BP West Coast Products, LLC Judge (s)/Court Below: Tookey, PJ. for the Court; DeVore, J.; & Linder, SJ. Under ORS 646.608 (1) (u), the Attorney General has rulemaking authority for protecting consumers from “any other unfair or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce.”
What was the lawsuit against BP West Coast Products LLC?
TOOKEY, P. J. In this class action, plaintiff, Steven Scharfstein, alleged that defendant, BP West Coast Products, LLC (BP), violated the Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA) and the Gasoline Price Advertising Rule by illegally assessing and collecting debit card fees from millions of Oregon consumers.
Where did the money from the BP lawsuit come from?
Some weren’t sure what they’d done to receive the money or what to do if they didn’t get their checks. The money came from a class-action judgment against BP in a case titled Scharfstein v. BP West Coast Products. That company owns the Arco gas station chain and the affiliated am/pm convenience stores.
Are BP settlement checks a scam?
The nonprofit organization Oregon Consumer Justice, in partnership with Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum of the Oregon Department of Justice, wants the public to know that the checks are not a scam; they are a settlement from a class action lawsuit against BP.
Does BBB endorse any business?
If you choose to do business with this business, please let the business know that you contacted BBB for a BBB Business Profile. As a matter of policy, BBB does not endorse any product, service or business.
Can BBB profiles be reproduced?
BBB Business Profiles may not be reproduced for sales or promotional purposes.
Can BBB be reproduced?
BBB Business Profiles may not be reproduced for sales or promotional purposes. BBB Business Profiles are provided solely to assist you in exercising your own best judgment. BBB asks third parties who publish complaints, reviews and/or responses on this website to affirm that the information provided is accurate.
When is Scharfstein v. BP?
Scharfstein v. BP W. Coast Prods., LLC COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON (May 30, 2018)
What is a class action lawsuit against BP?
On December 29, 2011, plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint against BP alleging that BP illegally assessed and collected debit card fees in violation of the UTPA. ORS 646.608 (1) (u) provides that a "person engages in an unlawful practice if in the course of the person's business, vocation or occupation the person *** [e]ngages in any other unfair or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce." For a person's conduct to constitute "any other unfair or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce" under ORS 646.608 (1) (u), the Attorney General must adopt an administrative rule prohibiting that specific conduct. See ORS 646.608 (4) ("An action or suit may not be brought under subsection (1) (u) of this section unless the Attorney General has first established a rule *** declaring the conduct to be unfair or deceptive in trade or commerce."). As we discuss in more detail below, the Attorney General has adopted a rule in OAR chapter 137, division 20, declaring that unfair or deceptive gasoline price advertising is an unlawful trade practice.
What is OAR 137-020-0150?
OAR 137-020-0150 was adopted pursuant to Oregon Laws 1985, chapter 751, section 2, and ORS 646.608 (1) (u). Oregon Laws 1985, chapter 751, section 2, required the Attorney General to adopt rules to aid in the implementation of former ORS 646.875, renumbered as ORS 646.930 (1985). The other statutory grant of rulemaking authority, ORS 646.608 (1) (u), gives the Attorney General broad rulemaking authority under the UTPA to protect consumers from "any other unfair or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce." See BP West Coast Products, LLP, 284 Or App at 734-37 (discussing the "Attorney General's broad grant of rulemaking authority" under the UTPA "to identify and prohibit 'any other unfair or deceptive conduct' concerning the display of fuel prices" (quoting ORS 646.608 (1) (u))). For a person's conduct to constitute "any other unfair or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce," the Attorney General must adopt an administrative rule prohibiting that specific conduct. See ORS 646.608 (4) ("An action or suit may not be brought under subsection (1) (u) of this section unless the Attorney General has first established a rule *** declaring the conduct to be unfair or deceptive in trade or commerce.").
Why did BP assign error to the trial court?
On appeal, BP assigns error to the trial court's denial of its motion for directed verdict "because plaintiff failed to prove that the alleged UTPA violation caused plaintiff and the class to suffer an ascertainable loss of money or property ." BP also assigns error to the court's denial of its post-verdict motion to decertify the class "because individual questions predominate, making a class action not superior." In a combined argument on those assignments, BP contends that plaintiff was required to prove reliance as part of his UTPA claim and, hence, the trial court erred in denying those motions because plaintiff did not, and could not, prove reliance on a class-wide basis. In response, plaintiff contends that " [i]n an illegal charge or certain nondisclosure cases the charge itself is illegal without reference to the difference in value" and " [t]he 'ascertainable loss' is the illegal overcharge and causation occurs when it is paid." Plaintiff asserts that, in that kind of case, reliance is not required.
What was the BP motion to dismiss?
Then in April of that year, BP filed two motions: The first was a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the Gasoline Price Advertising Rule is invalid, and the second was a motion to strike or, alternatively, to decertify the class on the ground that the statutory damages were unconstitutionally excessive. The trial court denied those motions. On December 14, 2015, after the Supreme Court decided Pearson v. Philip Morris, Inc ., 358 Or 88, 361 P3d 3 (2015), BP filed alternative motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), new trial, and class decertification, reiterating its argument that plaintiff had failed to prove reliance on a class-wide basis. The court denied those motions. On May 31, 2016, the court entered an amended general judgment awarding the 2,046,500 members of the class attorney fees, costs, and $409,300,000 in statutory damages. BP appeals that judgment.
What is BP's third assignment of error?
In BP's third assignment of error, BP argues that "the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, " because " [t]he rule's definition of 'condition' is invalid." After we decided BP West Coast Products, LLP, plaintiff filed a supplemental memorandum of authorities, arguing that our decision in that case "rejects defendant's challenge to [the validity of] OAR 137-020-0150 (1) (b)." BP concedes, and we agree, that BP West Coast Products, LLP, controls the outcome of BP's third assignment of error and, therefore, we reject BP's third assignment of error.
Is the unlawful trade practice and the ascertainable loss alleged in this case materially distinguishable from the plaintiff?
As we will describe, the nature of the unlawful trade practice and the ascertainable loss alleged in this case are materially distinguishable from the plaintiffs' misrepresentation claim and theory of economic loss in Pearson. Here, a reasoned analysis of plaintiff's claim leads us to conclude that reliance is not required to prove causation.
How to contact Oregon Attorney General about debit card scam?
Oregon residents who have information about or have fallen victim to a scam should contact the Oregon Attorney General’s Consumer Hotline at 1-877-877-9392 or online at OregonConsumer.gov. Last year, the Attorney General’s Consumer Hotline received 36,000 phone calls, resulting in more than 6,500 written consumer ...
How much was the Oregon debit card fee in 2014?
In 2014, the jury and the court concluded that class members in this case were unfairly and illegally charged a $0.35 debit card fee in violation of Oregon regulations and the Oregon Unfair Trade Practices Act. The jury verdict resulted in an award of damages of $409 million.
Is the Oregon Consumer Justice check a scam?
The nonprofit organization Oregon Consumer Justice, in partnership with Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum of the Oregon Department of Justice, wants the public to know that the checks are not a scam; they are a settlement from a class action lawsuit against BP. According to OCJ, 27% of the checks from the first round of settlement checks distributed ...
What is Arco's lawsuit?
The lawsuit was filed against Arco's parent company, BP, in 2011 under Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act alleging the company charged customers 35 cents for using their debit cards but did not properly advertise that fee at the pump.
Can KGW verify BP settlement?
KGW can Verify: the BP settlement checks are legitimate.
Who brought the class action against Arco?
Oregon lawyer David Sugerman brought the class action on behalf of customers who were charged an extra $.35 cents for debit card transactions, an amount that wasn’t advertised at the pump. I’ve always had an issue with this fee at ARCO stations because a debit card should act like cash, not credit.
How many times a day does BP charge for ARCO?
According to court records, BP (British Petroleum and franchisor of ARCO stations), continued to charge the fee over 10,000 times a day, even after the lawsuit was filed in 2011.
How much does BP pay to legal aid?
Additionally, under a 2015 Oregon law, BP will pay $36 million to Legal Aid Services of Oregon and another $36 million to establish a new nonprofit, called Oregon Consumer Justice, dedicated to consumer education and protection.
Who maintains the Epiq database?
Epiq says it checked addresses with the National Change of Address database maintained by the U.S. Postal Service.
Where did the money come from in the Arco case?
The money came from a class-action judgment against BP in a case titled Scharfstein v. BP West Coast Products. That company owns the Arco gas station chain and the affiliated am/pm convenience stores. A Multnomah County jury found more than five years ago that they had overcharged customers who paid with their debit cards and the judge in the case ordered BP to pay $409 million.
Do you have to take action to take advantage of the Epiq settlement?
Epiq indicated “The vast majority of class members” have received or will automatically receive payment: “You do not need to take any action to take advantage of this settlement.”
Do affiliate links earn commission?
Note to readers: if you purchase something through one of our affiliate links we may earn a commission.
Is the BP judgment unconstitutional?
BP maintains that the judgment is unconstitutional but agreed to settle the case after losing an appeal in state court.
Can you cashed a check with Epiq?
To prevent fraud, Epiq issued checks that cannot be cashed. But if you don’t have a bank account, write to the claims administrator at the address above, either email ( [email protected]) or regular postal mail, with your name and address. Ask for a check that can be cashed rather than deposited.