H&R Block’s tax filing service allows customers to obtain faster tax refunds in two ways: (1) the customer can pay $25 for H&R Block to file the return with the Internal Revenue Service electronically, in which case the customer will receive the refund in two weeks; or (2) if the customer wants the funds even faster, H&R Block can arrange a loan from a third-party bank in the amount of the customer’s refund through its Rapid Anticipation Loan (RAL) program. H&R Block benefited financially in at least one way, and potentially in as many as three ways, from each RAL. First, H&R Block received a “license fee” of $3 to $9 for every RAL referred to a lending bank. Second, its affiliate, H&R Block Financial, purchased about one-half of the RALs from lender banks. Third, under an arrangement with Sears, Roebuck & Co., H&R Block encouraged RAL customers to cash their checks at Sears and received a fee equal to 15 percent of the check cashing fee that Sears charged for cashing the loan checks. H&R Block did not disclose its financial participation in the RAL program to its customers. Joyce Green filed a class-action suit on behalf of all Maryland customers who obtained RAL bank loans, claiming, among other things, that H&R Block had breached its fiduciary duty by failing to disclose the benefits it received from the lending institutions to which it referred its customers. 

(a) What arguments will Green make? What arguments will H&R Block make in its defense? 

(b) Could H&R Block have added language to its customer contracts to ensure that it would not owe any fiduciary obligations to its customers? 

(c) Even if H&R Block is found not to have a fiduciary obligation to its customers, was it ethical for H&R Block to receive fees for the RAL program and not disclose them to its customers? [Green v. H & R Block, Inc., 735 A.2d 1039 (Md. Ct. App. 1999).]