Practice Areas

Consumer Protection

State and federal laws provide consumers with protections and avenues of recovery from unfair or deceptive acts or practices as well as false or misleading advertising.  Krislov Law has taken leading roles in successfully prosecuting cases on behalf of consumers against banks, insurance companies, utility companies and telephone companies.  The consumer protection cases Krislov Law has pursued include:

  •  Ambrose v. Security Guard College, Inc., No. 2014-CH-10322 (Cir. Ct. Cook County, Ill., Chancery Div.); Krislov Law filed a complaint against Security Guard College, James Andel and Bass Pro Shops for promoting and providing concealed carry weapons classes which did not meet the state's requirements.  The state of Illinois revoked Mr. Andel's instructor license and has apparently denied all applicants who took these conceal carry classes on the basis that the classes did not provide the minimum number of hours necessary under the law.  Our firm is seeking a recovery from Security Guard College and Bass Pro Shops of the costs incurred by class members who took these classes.
  • Burrow v. Sybaris Clubs International, Inc., et al., No. 13-cv-02342 (N.D. Ill.) (on March 28, 2013 we filed a proposed class action against Sybaris Clubs International for violation of state and federal wiretapping laws.  Our complaint alleges that Sybaris, which operates five “romantic getaway” motels in Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana, secretly recorded every reservation phone line at all five motels from early 2012 through April 2013.  The recordings, which were made without the consent of Sybaris employees or customers, captured confidential financial data and – given the nature of Sybaris’ business – highly private personal information).
  • Velez v. Concordia University Chicago, No. 2013 CH 11308 (Cir. Ct. Cook County, Ill. Chancery Div.) (the firm represents graduate students in the School Counseling, M.A. program who were harmed when the school unilaterally dropped its accreditation for the program with the Council for Accreditation of Counseling & Related Educational Programs (CACREP)).
  • Pavlik v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, No. 10-cv-816 (N.D. Ill.); Krislov Law sued the FDIC to force the agency to turn over some $2 million received from a wrongdoer in a massive check-kiting scheme at the FDIC-seized Universal Federal Savings Bank located in Chicago's Pilsen neighborhood.  Krislov Law obtained landmark recovery recognizing depositors as equity owners of mutual savings bank.
  • In re TSCI, Inc. f/k/a Shaper Image Corporation, No. 08-10322 (Del. Bk. Ct.); we represent a certified class of consumer gift card holders in the Sharper Image bankruptcy (Del. Bk.) asserting priority over general business creditors.  The firm achieved a significant victory for gift card holders, elevating their priority in the Sharper Image bankruptcy. 
  • In re Perpetua/Burr Oak Cemetery, organized committee of families in Bankruptcy Court, involving scandal over re-sold graves and desecrated historic African American cemetery.
  • Mario Tricoci “Ethnic” Hair Charge Litigation, No. 05 C 5030 (N.D. Ill.) (settlement refunding charges for separate “ethnic” price list for salon services).
  • South Austin Coalition Community Council v. SBC Comm. Inc., 274 F.3d 1168 (7th Cir. 2001) (antitrust challenge to SBC-Ameritech merger).
  • Beckwith Place L.P. v. General Electric Co., No. 99 CH 18240 (Cir. Ct. Cook County, Ill.) (certified nationwide class against General Electric arising from dishwashers containing a defective switch causing fires; case settled).
  • Zapka v. Coca-Cola Co., 2001 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 20155 (N.D.Ill. 2001) (deceptive marketing of diet Coke, without disclosing that fountain version contains saccharin; settled action).
  • Zazove v. Pelikan, Inc., 326 Ill.App.3d 798, 761 N.E.2d 256 (1st Dist. 2001) (establishing Illinois jurisdiction over foreign producer of consumer products for consumer claims under stream of commerce concept).
  • Brody v. Finch Univ./Chicago Medical School, 298 Ill.App.146, 698 N.E.2d 257 (2d Dist. 1998) (right of students to enter into medical school under graduate program).
  • In re Starlink Corn Products, MDL 1403 ($9 million settlement for consumers) (lead counsel for consumer claims arising from the dispersion of the genetically engineered Starlink™ corn strain into human food products).
  • DeGradi v. KB Holdings, Inc., 02 CH 15838 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cty. Ill.) (obtained $3 million settlement from toy store company who allegedly improperly manipulated product prices to the public).
  • Coughlin v. Health Care Service Corp., d/b/a Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois, No. 02 C0053 (N.D. Ill.) and Doyle et. al. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois, No. 00 CH 14182 (Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. Ill.) ($6.95 Million settlement and injunctive relief in coordinated cases of claims involving Blue Cross’s reimbursement practices asserted against ERISA-plan insureds).
  • Cruz v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois, No. 00 CH 14182 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cty., Ill.); Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois v. Cruz, 2003 WL 22715815 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 17, 2003); and 396 F.3d 793 (7th Cir. 2005)(parallel state and federal litigation over Blue Cross’s claimed reimbursement right against third-party recoveries obtained by FEHBA-plan insureds; obtained summary judgment for Plaintiff and a certified class in the state litigation; prevailed at district court level in the federal action in dismissing Blue Cross’s federal preemption claims, and successfully vacated the Seventh Circuit’s judgment for Blue Cross before the United States Supreme Court, 126 S. Ct. 2964 (June 26, 2006); see also, Empire Healthchoice Assur. v. McVeigh, 126 S. Ct. 2121 (2006), in which Krislov firm acted as amicus in support of McVeigh, the prevailing party (cited Id. at 2135) in the United States Supreme Court’s decision regarding the scope of federal jurisdiction and preemption under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act and federal common law; firm subsequently prevailed also in the Supreme Court’s remand of the case to the Seventh Circuit.  Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois v. Cruz, 495 F.3d 510 (7th Cir. 2007) (dismissing Blue Cross’s federal claims against FEHBA plan insureds).  State action settled for $1.5 million, providing full recovery to the certified class.
  • Primax Recoveries Inc. v. Sevilla, 324 F.3d 544 (7th Cir. 2003) (successfully argued to the Seventh Circuit that federal law did not preempt health insured’s state law claims seeking application of Illinois’ common fund doctrine to insurer’s reimbursement lien asserted against insured’s third-party recoveries; and that insurer’s strategic waiver in state court barred its claims in federal court.  See also Primax Recoveries, Inc. v. Sevilla, 2002 WL 58816 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 15, 2002) (granting motion to dismiss); Health Cost Controls v. Sevilla, 365 Ill.App.3d 795 (1st Dist. 2006) (reversing denial of class certification).  In 2011, after 15 years of litigation, the firm obtained full recovery for the class, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees from the insurer.
  • Allenson v. Hoyne, 272 Ill.App.3d 938 (1st Dist. 1995) (civil RICO cause upheld in state court over misamortizing of home mortgage payments).
  • Cohan v. Citicorp, 266 Ill.App.3d 626 (1st Dist. 1993)(charges on ADR shares of foreign securities).
  • In re Commonwealth Edison 1990 Chicago Power Outages, Nos. 90-7547 and 90-7637 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cty. Ill.) (the firm recovered $4 million for some 63,000 low-income customers for damages from extended power outages).
  • In re Illinois Bell, Nos. 91-930, 91-1354 and 91-12529 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cty. Ill.) (firm recovered $3.5 million over disputed late charges and surcharges).
  • Stefanski v. City of Chicago, No. 09 CH 29238 (Cir. Ct. Cook County, Ill., Chancery Div.) (firm represents City of Chicago employees and former employees who are or were injured by a third-party, retained an attorney and obtained a recovery against the third-party, and against which the City asserted a health care reimbursement lien without reducing its lien pursuant to Illinois' common fund doctrine.  The firm prevailed on the City's motion to dismiss, and prevailed on plaintiff's motion for class certification and motion for summary judgment and on the City's cross-motion for summary judgment.  The City has appealed these decisions and the matter is currently pending in the Illinois Appellate Court).
  • Murray v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. et al., No. 09-cv-5744-CW (N.D. Cal.) (Firm represents California plaintiffs who purchased Kenmore brand clothing dryers that were deceptively marketed as containing a 100% “stainless steel” drums when in fact the drums contained mild steel that caused clothing to damage and rust.  The firm recently defeated Defendants Sears, Roebuck & Co. and Electrolux Home Products, Inc. Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Class Allegations and was permitted to pursue plaintiff’s California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and California Unfair Competition Law claims on a class-wide basis.


Krislov Law

20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1006
Chicago, IL 60606

Toll Free:  855.263.3025

Tel: 312.606.0500 | Fax: 312.739.1098

Photography by Ian Korer