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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
We take a break from our series on incorporating software into your products to talk about a case the Supreme Court is considering that may prove significant to manufacturers. This column is not typically the place to go for predictions on what the Supreme Court may do, but I want to bring this case to your attention, and circumstances are forcing me to do it now rather than later.
The Third Circuit recently affirmed denial of certification of a class of patients who alleged that the medical testing company, Quest Diagnostics, Inc., routinely overbilled patients. See Grandalski, et a. v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., et al., No. 13-4329 (September 11, 2014). Quest Diagnostics is the country’s largest provider of medical testing.
The Seventh Circuit recently affirmed dismissal of a putative class action alleging that a major airline improperly calculated frequent-flyer miles. In Han v. United Continental Holdings, Inc. et al., No. 13-3871, decided August 11, 2014, the plaintiff, Hongbo Han, filed a putative class action against United Air Lines, Inc. and related entities (“United”) alleging it breached the terms of its frequent-flyer program, called the “MileagePlus Program.”