Pennsylvania: Appeals court blocks city’s immigration law
ALLENTOWN, Pa. (AP) — A federal appeals court has largely upheld a ruling that Hazleton, Pa., may not enforce its crackdown on illegal immigrants.
The decision Thursday by an appeals court deals a blow to regulations that inspired copycat measures around the nation, including Arizona.
The northeastern Pennsylvania city had sought to deny business permits to companies that employ illegal immigrants, fine landlords who rent to them and require legal tenants to register and pay for a rental permit.
Hispanic groups and illegal immigrants had sued to overturn the laws, saying they usurped the federal government’s exclusive power to regulate immigration. The laws were never enforced.
Massachusetts: Bankruptcy Code’s ‘debt relief’ clauses upheld
BOSTON, MA -- The Bankruptcy Code’s new restrictions on “debt relief agencies” do not violate free speech protections, the 2nd Circuit has ruled.
The decision reverses in part a U.S. District Court ruling.
The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act went into effect in 2005. Certain provisions of the Act applicable to “debt relief agencies” prohibit advising clients to incur more debt in contemplation of bankruptcy, require written client agreements, and require that certain notices be communicated to clients and placed in advertising.
In this case, the Connecticut Bar Association and a number of bankruptcy attorneys sued challenging the constitutionality of the Act’s restrictions on debt relief agencies.
The 2nd Circuit concluded that many of the plaintiffs’ challenges were foreclosed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz v. U.S. that the term “debt relief agency” applies narrowly to attorneys assisting consumer debtors contemplating bankruptcy.
Applying Milavetz, the 2nd Circuit overturned the district court’s ruling that the Act’s prohibition on advising debtors to incur more debt violated the First Amendment.
Addressing the plaintiffs’ remaining claims, the court concluded that the Act’s notice and written contract requirements were permissible restrictions on commercial speech.
Hawaii: Court rules videogamer can sue over addiction
BOSTON, MA -- The player of an online videogame can sue the game’s developer for negligently marketing an addictive product, a U.S. District Court in Hawaii has ruled in denying a motion to dismiss.
The plaintiff subscribed to play Lineage II, an online videogame developed by the defendants.
The plaintiff sued for negligence and gross negligence after he allegedly spent 20,000 hours over five years playing the game.
According to the plaintiff, playing Lineage II renders individuals psychologically dependent and the defendants breached a duty of care by failing to warn customers of the addictive nature of its game.
The court concluded that the plaintiff’s allegations adequately stated claims for relief under Hawaii law.
In addition, the court concluded that a limitation of liability clause in the defendants’ online user agreement did not apply to deprive federal courts of subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claims.
However, the court concluded that the plaintiff’s allegations lacked the required specificity for him to pursue related fraud claims.
