Deceptive Practices & Fraud Lawyer

Frequently Asked Deceptive Practices & Fraud Questions

The Illinois Consumer Fraud & Deceptive Business Practices Act is a law intended to protect consumers, borrowers, and others against fraud, unfair methods of competition, and unfair or deceptive business practices. The Act provides for civil and, in some circumstances, even criminal liability for violations of the Act. 

Class action cases are often associated with deceptive practices and fraud. They can be extremely complex, but can generally be described as a type of lawsuit where the plaintiffs (those individuals suing) are a group of people who are represented collectively by a single member, or multiple member, of that group.

For example, I was appointed Illinois class counsel in a federal court case in Kansas City involving a product known as 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid. In that case, there are hundreds of Illinois consumers who were harmed, but only a couple of those individuals are noted on court filings and other documents. However, when the case comes to a conclusion, and assuming a successful resolution, all of those harmed consumers will be entitled to recover money damages despite not being actively involved in the case.

303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid (THF for short) is considered a lower-cost alternative to the more expensive hydraulic fluids recommended and sold by equipment manufacturers. According to lawsuits filed across the country (including lawsuits I helped file in Illinois), 303 THF does not meet certain equipment manufacturer specifications, despite labeling to the contrary, and does not provide advertised benefits. In all actuality, 303 THF may actually harm equipment.

I was appointed class counsel for a class action case filed against certain defendants in Kansas City. I am also working on other class action cases against other defendants related to 303 THF here in Illinois and in other states. 

If you believe you have suffered equipment damage as a result of 303 THF, I’d love to hear from you.


Yes. I am working with a law firm in St. Louis to represent farmers who may have suffered damage attributable to Dicamba. 

To briefly explain the litigation, Dicamba is a powerful herbicide which is commonly used by farmers across the country, especially in Central Illinois. According to lawsuits, Dicamba has a tendency to “drift” away from the area where it was sprayed. This “drift” can cause damage to the fields of neighboring farmers, causing yield loss.

The lawsuits are not aimed against farmers who use and spray Dicamba. Instead, the lawsuits accuse Monsanto (now Bayer) and BASF of a number of legal violations, including that directions and labeling were impossible to follow as well as allegations that Dicamba was sold with the knowledge that it would cause damage to other farmers fields which would induce those farmers to eventually purchase Dicamba-resistant seeds.

Farmers sued Syngenta AG alleging that Syngenta sold two genetically modified crops (Viptera and Duracade) before it should have because those traits were not yet approved for importation in China. The lawsuits then allege that as a result of not waiting, China denied US corn shipments which reduced the price of corn throughout the United States. Syngenta has admitted no wrongdoing, but did agree to settle the case for over $1,500,000,000. 

Throughout the litigation, my firm has worked on the case because our managing partner (and my cousin) Chris Ellis was appointed by the Federal Judge overseeing the case to the Plaintiff’s Executive Committee. I specifically have worked with our named Illinois plaintiffs in submitting thousands of pages in discovery to Syngenta’s lawyers and have worked directly with hundreds of our clients to properly submit claim forms and otherwise produce documentation that will allow them to recover their share of the $1.5 billion settlement.