Photo of Michael E. Lacy

Michael heads the firm’s Consumer Financial Services practice, and handles class actions and high-stakes consumer litigation on a nationwide basis. He represents banks, mortgage servicers, debt buyers and collectors, and lenders against claims under consumer protection statutes, including the FCRA, TCPA, RESPA, RICO, and state UDAP laws. He has significant experience litigating and trying corporate governance disputes, including shareholder derivative claims, corporate dissolution cases, and corporate divorce matters. Michael also represents public utility companies in litigation and regulatory matters, including condemnation and land use cases.

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) carries the risk of annihilative damages for class action defendants based on its remarkable statutory damages scheme. Because of this risk, the statute has been the subject of significant court and agency attention recently. And much of this attention – from the D.C. Circuit’s opinion in ACA International to

The House of Representatives’ Financial Services Committee convened for a hearing last week entitled “Challenges and Solutions: Access to Banking Services for Cannabis-Related Businesses.”  At the hearing, the Committee focused on a “discussion draft” of the Secure and Fair Enforcement Banking Act of 2019 (the “SAFE Banking Act),

2018 was a busy year in the consumer financial services world. As we navigate the continuing heavy volume of regulatory change and forthcoming developments from the Trump Administration, members of Troutman’s Consumer Financial Services Practice will review the current state of federal and state consumer financial services law and policy and highlight what you and

The Consumer Financial Services practice at Troutman Sanders LLP has been selected as one of Law360’s 2018 Practice Groups of the Year. The team was recognized in Law360’s Consumer Protection category for excellence in representing and advising clients with respect to high-stakes litigation and regulatory matters, as well as compliance issues.

The firm also received

The Supreme Court has denied the petition for certiorari filed by State National Bank of Big Spring (“the Bank”) and two non-profit organizations challenging Title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  The Petitioners argued that the CFPB violates the Constitution’s separation of powers

ATLANTA – The Consumer Financial Services practice at Troutman Sanders LLP has been selected as one of Law360’s 2018 Practice Groups of the Year. The team was recognized in Law360’s Consumer Protection category for excellence in representing and advising clients with respect to high-stakes litigation and regulatory matters, as well as compliance issues. The

As we previously reported, last year the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina trebled a jury verdict against DISH Network L.L.C. in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action, resulting in a $61 million damages award.  After months of post-trial motions (which were denied), the Court now recently ruled

A Florida federal judge entered a judgment for over $23 million last week against Robert Guice, the alleged operator of a telemarketing scam offering debt relief services to consumers.

The lawsuit, brought by the Federal Trade Commission and the Florida Attorney General, alleged that Guice created Loyal Financial & Credit Services, LLC (“Loyal”), Life Management

On November 16, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted final approval of a $1.2 million Fair Credit Reporting Act class action settlement against Petco Animal Supplies, Inc.

As we previously reported, a putative class action was filed against Petco in June 2016, challenging the company’s form of disclosure

The U.S. Supreme Court has granted a petition by a healthcare company to consider whether courts must give deference to the FCC’s legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. 

The dispute in this case arises from an unsolicited fax transmission received by Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, which offered a free e-book.  The company