Earlier this month, the Mayor of Philadelphia signed legislation regulating the use of credit checks in employment decisions. By enacting this legislation, Philadelphia joins a growing cast of cities and states throughout the country prohibiting employment credit checks in certain instances. When coupled with recent federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission enforcement actions against employers based
Arkansas Attorney General Announces Settlement with Online Payday Lender
On June 24, 2016, Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge announced a settlement agreement with payday lender, Western Sky Financial LLC, and loan servicer, CashCall Inc., to resolve allegations that the companies conspired to offer illegal online loans to Arkansas consumers while claiming to be shielded by tribal sovereign immunity.
According to the Arkansas Attorney General,
New Putative Class Action Challenges FCRA Disclosure Form
A new putative class action against Petco Animal Supplies Inc. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint challenges Petco’s form of disclosure for employment background checks.
“By embedding its purported disclosure in an employment application and including extraneous information within and around the disclosure, defendant disregarded
Connecticut Becomes Latest State to “Ban the Box”
On June 1, Connecticut Governor Dan Mallory signed the Fair Chance Employment Act (CT HB 5237) into law. The statute, like other “ban the box” laws nationwide, prohibits covered employers from asking about an applicant’s criminal history on an initial employment application.
Under the Act, “employers” are broadly defined to mean “any person engaged in
Spokeo Starts to Show Its Effects
On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins. In Spokeo, the Court addressed the issue of whether the Plaintiff alleged a sufficient injury-in-fact to satisfy Article III standing requirements. The case was ultimately vacated and remanded based on the Ninth Circuit’s failure to address
FTC Hosts FinTech Forum on Marketplace Lending
On June 10, Troutman Sanders attended the Federal Trade Commission’s FinTech Forum on marketplace lending. The event marked the first in the FTC’s FinTech Forum series, which is part of the FTC’s ongoing efforts to examine marketplace lending and its impact on consumers. The topics discussed during the forum included adequate
Troutman Sanders Lawyers Publish Consumer Financial Regulation Survey
We are pleased to announce that Troutman Sanders attorneys David Anthony, Ashley Taylor, Paige Fitzgerald, and Laura Anne Kuykendall published a survey through Thomson Reuters which focuses on consumer financial regulation issues for the Commonwealth of Virginia. The survey is formatted as a question and answer guide, and addresses state-specific laws governing
Court Finds Plaintiff’s Background Check Disclosure Claim Against Target Misses the Bullseye
In Just v. Target Corporation, the plaintiff alleged that Target willfully violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by providing him with a background check disclosure form that did not consist “solely of the disclosure” that a background check would be obtained. In a victory for employers, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s allegations at the
Seventh Circuit Rules Debt Collectors Do Not Violate FDCPA By Dismissing Lawsuits Prior to Trial
On May 19, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that debt collectors who filed collection lawsuits and then dismissed them prior to trial did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Section 1692e(5) of the FDCPA prohibits debt collectors from using a false, deceptive, or misleading representation to threaten to take an action
Supreme Court Rejects Claim That Collection Letters on Attorney General’s Letterhead Sent By Private Debt Collection Attorneys Misled Borrowers
On May 16, 2016, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled that private attorneys hired by states to collect back taxes and other debts did not mislead investors by sending collection letters to borrowers using the state Attorney General’s letterhead. The Court found that the attorneys were acting as agents of the Attorney General and, therefore,