Photo of Meagan Mihalko

Meagan Mihalko’s national practice includes defending both class action and individual matters involving federal consumer protection statutes like the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

More than two years after the Supreme Court’s opinion in Facebook v. Duguid, courts and litigants continue to wrestle with the statutory definition of “automatic telephone dialing system” (ATDS) under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The debate centers on footnote 7 in Facebook, wherein the Supreme Court ostensibly embraced the proposition that an ATDS includes dialing systems that employ random or sequential number generators (RSNGs) to index and/or order telephone numbers for later dialing, but do not themselves generate the telephone numbers to be dialed. A recent opinion issued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado illustrates the ongoing controversy surrounding footnote 7 and its impact on current and future TCPA claims.

Please join Troutman Pepper Partner Chris Willis and his colleagues Jonathan Floyd and Meagan Mihalko as they discuss recent trends in Article III standing in the federal courts. The trio examine why this is a big deal in consumer litigation, whether courts consistently apply recent Supreme Court decisions with one another, and what considerations and implications defendants should consider when deciding whether or not to remove a case from state to federal court.

Earlier this month, a district court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed on its own initiative a Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) claim brought by a consumer alleging inaccurate reporting of her charged-off vehicle loan. The court’s opinion in Shelton v. Americredit Financial Services, Inc. provides a nuts-and-bolts analysis of what does not constitute

On March 15, Judge Eve M. Reilly of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, dismissed a class action complaint based solely on the allegation that a collection letter was sent by a third-party letter vendor.

In Stallworth v. Terrill Outsourcing Group, LLC et al, the plaintiff alleged that the debt collector communicated her

An Illinois federal district court recently denied a creditor-defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) case brought by a consumer who questioned why his debt was being reported twice — as both a tradeline with the original creditor and as a tradeline with a third-party collection agency. The court’s opinion

Chris Willis, co-chair of the CFS Regulatory Practice, Announces the Publication of the 2022 CFS Year in Review and a Look Ahead

Troutman Pepper’s Consumer Financial Services Practice Group consists of more than 120 attorneys and professionals nationwide, who bring extensive experience in litigation, regulatory enforcement, and compliance. Our trial attorneys have litigated thousands of individual and class-action lawsuits involving cutting-edge issues across the country, and our regulatory and compliance attorneys have handled numerous 50-state investigations and nationwide compliance analyses.

We are pleased to share our annual review of regulatory and legal developments in the consumer financial services industry. Our team has prepared this organized and thorough analysis of the most important issues and trends throughout our industry. We not only examined what happened in 2022, but also what to expect — and how to prepare — for the months ahead.

On February 13, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of an Eastern District of New York court and found that the defendant law firm, Mandarich Law Group, LLC (Mandarich), had conducted a meaningful attorney review of the plaintiff debtor’s account prior to mailing her a debt collection letter on the firm’s letterhead.

According to the district court for the District of Massachusetts, debt collectors may be found in violation of § 1692g(a)(3) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when sending debt collection letters requiring the consumer to dispute the debt in writing.

As background, in Sherwyn Rocke v. Monarch Recovery Management, Inc. (Monarch), the

In a recent decision, a Michigan district court found that because there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether the defendant debt collector notified the consumer reporting agency (CRA) to remove a disputed debt notification from the plaintiff’s tradeline, the case could proceed to trial.

In Evans v. Merchants and Medical Credit Corp.

Federal courts across the country continue to divest themselves of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) cases following the Supreme Court’s salient Article III standing decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez. The Southern District of Illinois is no exception, with a court in that district recently dismissing an FDCPA action for lack of standing