Class-action plaintiffs do not get a free pass on constitutional standing requirements, as the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reminded litigants sua sponte in Drazen and Godaddy.com, LLC v. Pinto last week when it vacated a district court’s approval of a $35 million class-action settlement. Although the parties had not briefed the issue before the
On July 18, a New Jersey district court ruled that a customer’s contract termination with a merchant does not also terminate the “established business relationship” (EBR) exception for purposes of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The decision sheds light on an exception to the TCPA that likely will take on increasing importance, following the
On July 19, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware issued a decision that should draw the attention for banks that charge overdraft fees for overdraft protection.
In Miller v. Del-One Federal Credit Union, plaintiff Joanne Miller alleged that the defendant credit union violated Regulation E, promulgated under the Electronic Fund Transfers
On July 13, the FTC published its proposed Motor Vehicle Dealers Trade Regulation Rule in the Federal Register. As we covered here, the proposed rule would create a host of new compliance challenges for motor vehicle dealers, including a new national standard for price advertising, trigger disclosures for payments, added paperwork for the
In late June 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California gave final approval for a $2.5 million class-action settlement in Johnson v. Moss Brothers Auto Group to resolve claims brought against a motor vehicle dealer under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The settlement resolves a class action, pending since 2019,
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has proposed a new and historic federal regulation specific to car dealers to address concerns of consumer deception in the sales process. On June 24, the FTC released a proposed Motor Vehicle Trade Regulation Rule (Rule), which would:
On May 26, California Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) “Holder Rule” does not limit the award of attorneys’ fees where a consumer seeks fees from a holder under a state prevailing party statute.
The Holder Rule and Previous California Precedent
The FTC’s Holder Rule permits consumers to bring any legal claims
On March 24, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion, upholding separate district court decisions finding that a system that sends promotional text messages to phone numbers randomly selected from a database of customer information is not an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The concise
On March 22, California’s Fifth Appellate District Court of Appeals issued a decision on the availability of attorneys’ fees under the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Holder Rule. This case follows recent FTC guidance and two decisions from California’s Second Appellate District Court of Appeals holding that the Holder Rule does not bar recovery of attorneys’
On March 1, the Supreme Court of California held oral arguments in Pulliam v. HNL Automotive, Inc., No. S267576 (2021). The appeal may decide (at least under California state law) whether the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) “Holder Rule” permits a consumer to recover amounts beyond what he or she has paid to the holder,