Using a telemarketer to market goods or services can be extremely costly to the seller if the telemarketer conducts its business in a manner that violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Penalties for violations of the TCPA range from $500 to $1,500 per call. And with call or text campaigns that may reach thousands of recipients, or even millions – the potential liability can be astronomical. It should be no surprise TCPA class action lawsuits are flourishing.
When is a seller liable for illegal calls made by a third party telemarketer? Fleshing out vicarious liability under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
Federal Court in Missouri holds technical failure to comply with the FCC’s TCPA opt-out notice requirements on fax advertisements does not confer standing on recipient who consented to receive the faxes
The FCC’s TCPA “opt-out” notice requirements for sending solicited faxes continues to be weakened.
A new theory of securities fraud may prove important (and dangerous) to manufacturers.
A federal district court in California denies class certification to a nationwide putative TCPA class of consumers against a debt collector who allegedly made more than 500 million prohibited calls
The United States District Court for the Southern District of California recently issued an order denying class certification to a nationwide putative class of consumers against The CBE Group, Inc. (“CBE”), which alleged that CBE made over 500 million calls to these consumers’ cell phones without their prior express consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq. (“TCPA”). Blair, et al. v. The CBE Group, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-00134-MMA-WVG (S.D. Cal. August 26, 2015).
The Eleventh Circuit rules that Capital One is not a debt collector under the FDCPA with respect to defaulted credit card debt it acquired from HSBC
In the case of Davidson v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., No. 14-14200 (August 21, 2015), the Eleventh Circuit had occasion to decide whether a bank that collects on defaulted debt it acquired from another bank is a “debt collector” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p.
Can a Rule 68 offer of judgment that offers complete relief to the named plaintiff in a putative class action moot the entire case? While federal courts continue to reach different conclusions, the Supreme Court may finally weigh in
One tactic often used with varying degrees of success to thwart putative class actions brought under various federal statutes is to file an early offer of judgment under Rule 68 that provides the named plaintiff or plaintiffs complete relief in an effort to moot the putative class claims at the inception of a class case.
A federal district in Pennsylvania dismisses a putative FDCPA class action based on the filing a proof a claim on a time-barred debt in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy
I recently wrote about a decision from a federal district court in Alabama that sidestepped the Eleventh Circuit’s Crawford decision by finding that the Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) were in irreconcilable conflict, and the FDCPA gave way to the Code on the question of whether the mere act of filing a proof of claim on a stale debt in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy violated the FDCPA.
Federal Judge in California brings down the curtain on a FCRA class action against Paramount Pictures
Class actions alleging technical violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) against employers who obtain consumer reports on job applicants are all the rage, generating large settlements and headlines (at least in legal circles).
Home mortgage lenders hire law firm to send 88,937 collection letters to defaulted borrowers: Borrowers allege this violated the FDCPA and a federal judge certifies the class
In Lori Jo Vincent, et al. v. The Money Store, Inc. et al, No. 03 cv 2876 (S.D.N.Y. February 2, 2015), the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York certified a class of home mortgage borrowers who defaulted on their loans and received uniform “breach letters” from a law firm sent on behalf of the defendant mortgage servicing company and the defendant lenders.
This is not a litigation column, but I’m a trial attorney, so litigation is always on my mind. I’ve been hearing a lot of chatter lately about consumer class actions. Specifically: what must a putative consumer class do to show that the class members are ascertainable – that is, that the court and the lawyers and the class members can figure out who is in the class and who is not.