In the years following the Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1549 (2016) — which held that “bare procedural violation[s], divorced from any concrete harm, [do not] satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III” — district courts have had to grapple with the question of standing under the
2020 was a transformative year for the consumer financial services world. As we navigate an unprecedented volume of industry regulation, Troutman Pepper is uniquely positioned to help its clients find successful resolutions and stay ahead of the compliance curve.
In this report, we share developments in 2020 on consumer class actions, background screening, bankruptcy,
The CFPB recently published a blog post about the agency’s on-going efforts to monitor industry updates and innovation and how these changes align with regulatory obligations under the CFPB’s consumer protection laws. This post specifically highlighted using artificial intelligence (AI) and/or machine learning (ML) related to the adverse action notices that are required under the
2019 was a transformative year for the consumer financial services world. As we navigate an unprecedented volume of industry regulation, Troutman Sanders is uniquely positioned to help its clients find successful resolutions and stay ahead of the compliance curve.
In this report, we share developments on consumer class actions, background screening, bankruptcy, consumer credit
In a recent decision, the California Supreme Court held that plaintiffs do not need to demonstrate a plan for identifying and notifying class members in order to certify a class, as long as they can point to “objective characteristics and common transaction facts” that will allow the court to ascertain the class in the future.
Background
In Varela v. Lamps Plus, Inc.,