“Judge Garbis, in other words, isn’t confirming PA’s argument that the author-PA relationship is not a consumer matter–rather, he’s saying that the plaintiffs haven’t sufficiently demonstrated that it is. He makes a similar determination with regard to the plaintiffs’ claim of unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and fraud.”
“Though PA will likely dispute this, the dismissal doesn’t vindicate their business practices or endorse their counter-claims. Rather, it leaves the door open for the plaintiffs to return with stronger arguments to bolster their case. Obviously I can’t reach into the minds of the lawyers to see why they decided not to do so. But I have to be honest–it seems shoddy to me. If they felt they had sufficient grounds to base the original complaint on the MCPA, and to make claims of fraud, why would they not re-file? (Or, perhaps, more adequately state their argument in the first place?) It makes the lawsuit seem like some sort of blue-sky effort, launched without adequate commitment and folding at the first roadblock.”
I reported earlier this week on TIPM’s Facebook page that the class action lawsuit taken against PublishAmerica in June of this year was dismissed earlier this month.You can file the officially filed decision of the case here. WriterBeware has the full details, but in essence, it’s the old chestnut once again concerning specific relationship (or definition of it) authors enter into with publishing service providers. In recent years, several class action law suits have been dismissed by the US courts for similar reasons. In short, the courts refuse to see the relationship between author and publisher as a consumer rights issue. It is deemed to be a B2B (Business to Business) contract and cannot be covered by consumer law acts. However, this particular class action law suit indicates the judge considered that plaintiffs (authors) did not provide enough evidence that the case should be considered US consumer laws.