Photo of Ryan J. Strasser

Ryan J. Strasser

Subscribe to Ryan J. Strasser's Posts

Ryan is a first-chair trial attorney and a litigation partner in the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement (RISE) Practice Group. He focuses his practice primarily on litigation against state attorneys general (AGs) across the U.S. Ryan has served as lead counsel to companies confronting these challenging adversaries in an array of industries, including medical device manufacturing, consumer goods, orthodonture and dentistry, cloud computing, public records, privacy, and residential solar. He has appeared in various federal and state courts across the U.S.

Follow:Read more about Ryan J. StrasserRyan's Linkedin Profile

On October 17, following Washington Attorney General (AG) Bob Ferguson’s unsuccessful consumer protection action against thrift store chain, Savers Value Village Inc. (Savers), the Washington Superior Court of King County granted Savers’ motion for attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $4.3 million. This substantial award — which is allowable under the Washington Consumer Protection Act (WA CPA) — represents a substantial recoupment of Savers’ attorneys’ fees spent to defend the almost decade-long litigation.

In early March, New York State Attorney General Letitia James and New York City Corporation Counsel John E. Johnson announced a $105 million settlement against a hedge fund manager for tax evasion. The New York authorities were alerted to the potential of fraud in October 2018 by a whistleblower lawsuit brought under New York’s False…

Authors:
Miranda Hooker, Partner, Pepper Hamilton
Ashley L. Taylor, Jr., Partner, Troutman Sanders
Ryan J. Strasser, Associate, Troutman Sanders
Katherine E. Stark, Associate, Pepper Hamilton

Throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, every national crisis in the United States has left a long wake of investigations in its trail at all levels of government.…

On September 12, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in a precedential ruling, held that courts are not required to hold an in-person hearing prior to granting a government’s request to dismiss a qui tam whistleblower’s federal False Claims Act (“FCA”) or Delaware False Claims Act (“DFCA”) suit. However, the Court…

On August 30, the California Senate Appropriations Committee failed to approve A.B. 1270 which would extend the California False Claims Act to include tax matters, joining Illinois and New York as the only states that allow whistleblowers to file claims against companies alleging violations of the tax code. Notably, the Federal False Claims Act specifically …

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, Troutman Sanders is uniquely positioned to help its clients successfully resolve problems and stay ahead of the compliance curve.  

In this report, we share developments on …

Earlier this month, the apparent next chair of the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services, along with almost two dozen other Democrats, urged the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s new director to proactively supervise firms for compliance with servicemember lending rules. 

In a letter to CPFB Director Kathleen Kraninger, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.)…

By: Ashley Taylor, David Anthony, Stephen Piepgrass and Ryan Strasser

The Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA), Virginia Code § 59.1-196 et seq., represents the Virginia General Assembly’s effort to enact a sweeping and potent remedial tool to protect consumers from exploitation by a business where the consumer has engaged in a “consumer transaction” with…

A Roanoke City Circuit Court judge recently ordered a defendant to pay nearly $160,000 to two plaintiffs for violations of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (“VCPA”) in a dispute over a wrecked car worth no more than $9,300.

In Hughes v. Robert Young Auto & Truck, Inc., No. CL16-1364, the plaintiffs, a married North…

On December 13, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the imposition of joint and several liability on a payment processor that had provided “substantial assistance” to another entity that violated a federal ban on improper telemarketing practices. The decision leaves the payment processor responsible for paying the $1.7 million judgment with…