Today Mr. Norman filed the defendant’s Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims. This is the first time I saw the claim that Malibu Media’s conduct violates Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.
[…] plaintiff’s scam is “unfair” as contemplated by § 2 of the Act. See, Robinson v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp., 201 Ill. 2d 403, 418 (2002). In Robinson the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that there are three ways to prove unfairness under the Act. In fact, plaintiff’s scam is unfair under each of the three tests. First, plaintiff’s practice of implementing its scam against hundreds of unwary internet consumers “offends public policy.” Second, it is it is “immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous.” Finally, it “causes substantial injury to consumers.”
The word “scam” appears in the complaint 24 times, and those are not figurative uses.
I agree with such characterization.
According to Mr. Norman’s LinkedIn page,
Since 1983 he has handled more than 75 class action cases. He has counseled thousands of consumers and business owners regarding fraud, contract, warranty and other disputes, and many pastors and Christians regarding religious and civil rights.
…so this attorney most definitely knows what he is talking about.
Thanks to Raul for the find.
On 12/21 Malibu filed an angry 20-page motion to dismiss defendant’s counterclaim: Lipscomb appears to disagree that his firm and his “client” run a scam operation.