context: The amended VRPA no longer allows an individual to sue for statutory damages, and expands, to a significant degree, the circumstances in which a seller can disclose consumer information. The new law also imposes additional requirements on a seller regarding the notice it must give to customers whose data the seller intends to disclose for marketing purposes.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 511 U.S. 283, 283-84
citation_a.parenthetical: "The extent of a party's liability, in the civil context as well as the criminal, is an important legal consequence that cannot be ignored." (emphasis in original
citation_a.sentence: See, e.g., Frank W. Lynch & Co., 624 N.W.2d at 183 (finding that an amendment which permits the recovery of a penalty in addition to damages for an employment dispute is not remedial because retroactive application would “change significantly the substance of the parties’ agreement and unsettle their expectations”); Dale Baker Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Fiat Motors of N. Am., Inc., 794 F.3d 213, 219 (6th Cir.1986) (explaining that remedial statutes are those that only “involve procedural rights'or indicate the procedures for effecting a remedy”); see also Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 283-84, 114 S.Ct. 1483 (“The extent of a party’s liability, in the civil context as well as the criminal, is an important legal consequence that cannot be ignored.” (emphasis in original)). Accordingly, the amendment to the VRPA does not apply to Plaintiffs’ claims, and the Court will assess the sufficiency of those claims under the law as it was when Plaintiffs’ claims accrued.
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 624 N.W.2d 183, 183
citation_b.parenthetical: finding that an amendment which permits the recovery of a penalty in addition to damages for an employment dispute is not remedial because retroactive application would "change significantly the substance of the parties' agreement and unsettle their expectations"
citation_b.sentence: See, e.g., Frank W. Lynch & Co., 624 N.W.2d at 183 (finding that an amendment which permits the recovery of a penalty in addition to damages for an employment dispute is not remedial because retroactive application would “change significantly the substance of the parties’ agreement and unsettle their expectations”); Dale Baker Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Fiat Motors of N. Am., Inc., 794 F.3d 213, 219 (6th Cir.1986) (explaining that remedial statutes are those that only “involve procedural rights'or indicate the procedures for effecting a remedy”); see also Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 283-84, 114 S.Ct. 1483 (“The extent of a party’s liability, in the civil context as well as the criminal, is an important legal consequence that cannot be ignored.” (emphasis in original)). Accordingly, the amendment to the VRPA does not apply to Plaintiffs’ claims, and the Court will assess the sufficiency of those claims under the law as it was when Plaintiffs’ claims accrued.