The United States Supreme Court has denied a petition seeking review of a Seventh Circuit decision holding that a consumer lacked Article III standing to challenge an alleged violation of the Fair and Accurate Transactions Act where the defendant retailer printed more than the last five digits of his credit card number and the expiration
Employer Seeks Supreme Court Review of Ninth Circuit Finding of Willful FCRA Violation
On January 20, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision of first impression in Syed v. M-I, LLC, a putative class action, when it held that a prospective employer willfully violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by including a liability waiver in its FCRA background check disclosure form.
In the underlying
IRS Debt Collector Engages in Unscrupulous Collection Practices
On June 23, several United States senators, led by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), accused a debt collector of relying on unscrupulous collection practices while collecting on behalf of the Internal Revenue Service.
The IRS is owed approximately $138 billion in back taxes. To reduce the backlog of taxes owed and to supplement the agency’s internal
New Consumer Finance Lawsuits Increase in May 2017, On Pace with 2016
New data from WebRecon reflects an increase in the number of consumer finance lawsuits filed during the month of May. After a sharp decline in the number of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and Fair Credit Reporting Act lawsuits filed during the month of April, May saw a roughly 30% increase
Supreme Court Refuses to Extend the Scope of the FDCPA to Consumer Finance Company
On June 12, 2017, the United States Supreme Court rendered a unanimous decision holding that a company collecting debts that it purchased for its own account does not meet the statutory definition of “debt collector” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) because the debts are no longer “owed or due another.” We previously
Join Us for a Complimentary Webinar: A Review of the Supreme Court’s Decision in Henson v. Santander
On Wednesday, June 21, 2017, from 4:00 – 4:30 p.m. ET, Troutman Sanders attorneys David N. Anthony and Ethan G. Ostroff will explore the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision issued on June 12, 2017 and how it may affect companies in the collection industry. This decision resolves a Circuit split on the narrow issue of whether
J. Crew Beats FACTA Class Action on Spokeo Grounds
On June 6, a federal judge in New Jersey for the second time dismissed a putative class action against clothier J. Crew Group, Inc. on the grounds that the plaintiff, Ahmed Kamal, had not pled a concrete injury sufficient for Article III standing light of Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins. Kamal alleged that J. Crew violated
Five Guys Faces Background Check Lawsuit Over Allegedly Improper Disclosures
Five Guys Enterprises LLC—franchisor of the popular Five Guys Burger Co.—and a California franchisee are facing a lawsuit from a former employee alleging numerous violations of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and California state law. The plaintiff, Jeremy Lusk, alleges he began working for Five Guys in August 2016. He alleges that in the
CFPB Updates Its Planned Overhaul of Acceptable Debt Collection Practices
In July of 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau released an outline of new rules targeting third-party debt-collection operations. The new rules targeted various areas including: Debt validation, Limits on Contact, Consumer Disputes, and Deceased Consumers. At the time, the CFPB stated it planned to release rules relevant to first-party creditors at a later
Federal and State Regulators Obtain Record Judgment Enforcing TCPA Violations Predicated Upon Insufficient Vendor Oversight
On June 5, 2017, an Illinois federal judge awarded $280 million to the federal government and the states of California, Illinois, North Carolina, and Ohio against Dish Network LLC over violations of numerous federal and state do-not-call laws. The district court’s $280 million penalty constitutes the largest ever for violations of telemarketing laws. In addition,