Congress enacted the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq., (TCPA) to protect consumers from “[u]nrestricted telemarketing, which it determined to be “an intrusive invasion of privacy.” The TCPA prohibits, among other conduct, telephone calls to residential phone lines or cell phones using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior express consent of the called party.
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.
HB 1470, signed into law last week, does away with the “American Rule,” which impacts which party is responsible for attorney fees at the conclusion of a lawsuit. Set to go into effect in November 2017, the new law requires the court to award attorney fees to the prevailing party – paid for by the non-prevailing party.
The FCC’s TCPA “opt-out” notice requirements for sending solicited faxes continues to be weakened.
On January 10, 2017, Missouri Governor Eric Greitens signed Executive Order 17-03 (the “Order”). Among other things, the Order compels all state agencies to review each and every Missouri regulation appearing in the Code of State Regulations that falls within their jurisdiction.
We are pleased to report a victory in the Eastern District of Missouri in an FDCPA case concerning the collection of statutory post-judgment interest on an unpaid Missouri state court judgment.
Courts sometimes have trouble determining whether a warranty explicitly extends to future performance. A recent case provides refreshing clarity on the issue.
A new theory of securities fraud may prove important (and dangerous) to manufacturers.
If you’re like many manufacturers who sell internationally, your standard terms and conditions provide that the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (“CISG”) does not apply to your transaction. But, maybe they don’t, or maybe your disclaimer is ineffective (it happens a lot). In those instances, it’s important to understand where CISG differs from Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which typically covers sales of goods within the United States.
Today’s column is prompted by a recent decision by the Supreme Court of Missouri, in which the Court denied a Missouri manufacturer a sales tax refund.