Effective July 1, the Georgia Governor’s Office of Consumer Protection is moving administratively to the Office of the Georgia Attorney General. At that point and thereafter, the office will be known as the Consumer Protection Unit (CPU) of the Law Department. According to its announcement concerning this move, the unit will continue to perform essentially
Supreme Court Upholds Disparate Impact Liability Under the Fair Housing Act, but Also Stresses the Theory’s Limitations
On June 25, 2015, a 5-4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) permits discrimination claims brought under a disparate impact theory of liability. Justice Kennedy authored the majority opinion in the much-anticipated decision in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. – a
CFPB Sharpens its Scalpel in $5.9 Million Enforcement Action Against Medical Debt Collector Involving Mishandling of Credit Reporting Disputes
On June 18, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau filed a consent order and announced an enforcement action against a company specializing in medical debt collection for mishandling consumer credit reporting disputes and preventing consumers from exercising important debt collection rights. The CFPB is ordering the company to provide over $5.4 million in relief to harmed
FCC Passes New Declaratory Rule Clarifying and Interpreting Multiple, Key Provisions of the TCPA in a Manner That is Generally Unfavorable to Defendants
On June 18, 2015, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) voted 3-2 to approve an order that promises to have major and negative impacts on companies who use modern telephone technology to text and call consumers.
The stark increase in the number of lawsuits that were filed under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) has been
New York DFS Clarifies Debt Collection Requirements
On June 16, 2015, the New York State Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) released additional guidance related to its recently enacted debt collection regulations. The new clarifications supplement DFS’ initial set of “Frequently Asked Questions” released in February, with new guidance beginning at Question #17. DFS announced publication of the supplemental guidance during a “Debt
Second Circuit Holds That Federal Court Retains Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under CAFA Even After Plaintiff’s Amendment to Remove Class Action Allegations
In In Touch Concepts, Inc. d/b/a ZCOM v. Cellco Partnership, the Second Circuit joined the Seventh Circuit in holding that a federal court retains subject matter jurisdiction over a case that had previously been removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), even after the plaintiff amended the complaint to remove
FTC Holds Inaugural Debt Collection Dialogue
On June 15, the Federal Trade Commission and the Office of the New York State Attorney General hosted a “Debt Collection Dialogue” in Buffalo, New York. FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection Director Jessica Rich and New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman delivered opening remarks, and officials from the New York State Department of Financial
New York City “Bans the Box” in Limiting Inquiry into Job Applicants’ Criminal History
On June 10, the New York City Council became the latest governmental body to “ban the box” by prohibiting private employers within the city from inquiring into a job applicant’s criminal history, and instead requiring that criminal background inquiries be deferred until the time of a job offer. In so doing, New York City joins
CFPB Argues Processors Facilitated Debt Collection Fraud
On June 5, 2015, the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (the “CFPB”) argued that a lawsuit against four payment processors for their involvement in a debt collection scheme should not be dismissed. According to the CFPB’s complaint (found here), filed on March 26, 2015, this scheme involved Marcus Brown and Mohan Bagga and their
District Court Holds That Mailing Pre-Adverse and Adverse Action Letters Five Business Days Apart is Plausible FCRA Claim When It Conflicts With Content of Pre-Adverse Action Letter
In Moore v. Rite Aid Headquarters, the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled that the plaintiff had stated a plausible employment adverse action claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. In doing so, the Court’s decision raises questions about a widely accepted safe harbor of mailing pre-adverse and adverse action notices