Opinion ID: 1329761
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Permanent Injunction and Restitution were Warranted

Text: The main issue raised by Suarez on appeal is that the circuit court improperly granted summary judgment, and basically improperly stopped Suarez from using misleading solicitations and required Suarez to repay West Virginia consumers. Suarez argues two grounds: first, it should have been allowed to conduct discovery far in excess of that already conducted (the record in this case currently fills two banker's boxes); and second, it should have been allowed to present testimony through witnesses who would say they were not mislead by any Suarez solicitations, and testimony through loyal Suarez employees who would say no one intended to mislead anyone. Suarez basically argues that if a consumer who received a Suarez solicitation was misled, it was the consumer's fault. These arguments carry no weight. First, no additional discovery was needed in this case. Each side was given ample opportunity to examine the evidence held by their opponent. Testimony was taken from numerous witnesses, and piles of documents were exchanged and examined. Suarez has not directed us to any undiscovered area where evidence exists suggesting that each of the 17,563 West Virginia consumers did not receive one or more of the dozens of solicitations in the record. Further, Suarez has failed to direct us to any unexamined evidence suggesting that the misleading nature of the dozens of different solicitations in the record was the result of some repeatedly-occurring printing error or other factor. [1] The Attorney General's office made all of its evidence available for Suarez to inspect; accordingly, no additional discovery was necessary. Second, the Attorney General overwhelmingly proved that Suarez repeatedly used deceptive practices to affect consumers' decisions to buy his products, through the use of the many misleading solicitations mailed to West Virginia consumers. Summary judgment was proper because the Attorney General conclusively proved his case. Suarez never introduced evidence to dispute the fact that many of the 17,563 consumers were deceived by one or more of the solicitations. Instead, Suarez's defense was that because some consumers were not deceived and merely wanted to buy its products, the company should be allowed to put on evidence extrinsic to the printed solicitations through those satisfied consumers. Those consumers were expected to testify that they were able to read through the fine print in the solicitations, and Suarez contends it would also offer the testimony of employees who would say there was no intent by Suarez to mislead anyone. Basically, Suarez's argument appears to be that the trial court should have to sort through the 17,563 consumers one at a time to determine who was deceived and who was not. As demonstrated in the majority opinion (as well as this Court's opinion in State by and through McGraw v. Imperial Marketing, 196 W.Va. 346, 472 S.E.2d 792 (1996)), the Court closely examined three of Suarez's solicitations to demonstrate how the solicitations violated the Consumer Protection Act and Prizes and Gifts Act. I write to make clear that the permanent injunction against Suarez and the award of relief to West Virginia consumers is warranted, not only because of these three solicitations, but also because of the dozens of other solicitations entered into the record by the Attorney General. Seventeen Suarez solicitations were attached to one pleading alone. Simply put, each of these solicitations contains language clearly violating the Consumer Credit and Protection Act and the Prizes and Gifts Act. I was unable to count the number of times the phrases Official Prize Claim Notice, Winners Certification Claim Form, or Cash Prize Release Document were used. Each solicitation began by telling the consumer that he or she was a winnerbut buried in the fine print, or on another letter in the envelope, was the hint they really weren't a big winner after all. Therefore, many of the solicitations violate W. Va.Code, 46A-6D-3 [1992], which prohibits persons from making representations that someone has won a prize unless that prize is awarded to the consumer without obligation and delivered within 10 days of the representation. Another problem with the solicitations in the record is that, while every solicitation carried the disclaimer no purchase necessary, every solicitation also carried the suggestion the recipient was more likely to be a winner or would get their prize faster if they first bought some merchandise. W.Va.Code, 46A-6D-4(c) [1992] prohibits persons from making representations that as a condition of receiving a prize, the consumer must pay money or purchase, lease or rent goods or services. Another example is a solicitation that tells the consumer that they have won a 4-Door Chevrolet Caprice, Model Year 1995 if your Vehicle Award Claim is confirmed as a winning claimand attached is a note entitling the consumer to three Bonus Awards worth up to $300. [2] As discussed in the majority opinion, the use of the vague language worth up to is a clear violation of the Consumer Credit and Protection Act. See W.Va.Code, 46A-6D-4(a)(2)(i) [1992] (written sweepstakes materials must contain [t]he true retail value of each item or prize). The record also contains a solicitation from the tie-breaker supervisor of the Payables Desk, Department of Sweepstakes Administration which tells the recipient that he or she is tied with other individuals to win a cash prizewithout telling the reader the odds of winning, that is, how many other people the reader was tied with. This solicitation was likely drafted by someone who full-well knew the language was misleading, but thought it could later be argued that it technically was within the bounds of every consumer protection statute in the country. On the contrary, because the solicitation is misleading on its face, and because it fails to state the odds the consumer has of winning the sweepstakes, it violates West Virginia's consumer protection laws. See W.Va.Code, 46A-6D-4(a)(2)(iii) [1992] (written sweepstakes materials must contain [t]he odds of receiving each item, gift or prize). As the majority opinion makes clear, whether Suarez or any other sweepstakes operator violated this State's consumer protection law by mailing a consumer a solicitation primarily depends upon the language of the solicitation itself and not upon extrinsic evidence. If the language of a solicitation is, on its face, misleading, deceptive and, to the eye of a reasonable beholder, calculated to unfairly induce customers to purchase a product, then the solicitation violates the Consumer Credit and Protection Act, W.Va. Code, 46A-1-101 to -8-102, and the Prizes and Gifts Act, W.Va.Code, 46A-6D-1 to 10. Because the many solicitations in the record are patently deceptive, misleading, and obviously calculated to unfairly induce West Virginia consumers to buy cheap merchandise at inflated prices, the circuit court was correct in granting summary judgment to the Attorney General, awarding injunctive relief against Suarez, and requiring Suarez to pay back every single consumer who lost money as a result of receiving one of Suarez's solicitations. II.