In a recent decision, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted summary judgment in favor of a debt collector who responded to a debtor’s letter disputing and refusing to pay a debt by providing validation of the debt. The court found that the debt collector’s actions did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
On February 19, the National Consumers League (NCL) and four small business owners filed a motion to intervene in support of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the United States in the case of Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC. This motion seeks to challenge the panel’s January 24, 2025 decision that vacated the FCC’s 2023 Order, known as the One-to-One Rule.
In Kirkman v. Blitt and Gaines, P.C., the plaintiff sued the defendant in the Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) for sending her a letter by regular mail instead of email. The court found that the plaintiff lacked standing and granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
On February 4, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposed a $4,492,500 fine against Telnyx LLC for allegedly allowing illegal robocalls on its network. The FCC’s Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) serves as a formal notification of the apparent violations and the proposed monetary penalty. It is not a final Commission action. Telnyx will have the opportunity to respond to the allegations, submit evidence, and present legal arguments before the FCC makes a final determination.
In Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, — F.4th —-, 2025 WL 289152 (11th Cir. Jan. 24, 2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit came to the rescue of the lead generation industry, striking down new regulations that were set to go into effect on January 27. Under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227, sellers and telemarketers are prohibited from making certain telemarketing calls using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) or artificial or prerecorded voice messages without “prior express consent.” On December 18, 2023, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued an order adopting rules aimed at closing what it termed the “lead generator loophole” (2023 order). The FCC objected to lead generators using a single webform to obtain prior express written consent for a list of marketing partners. The FCC also objected to webforms that obtained broad consent for marketing calls about a wide-range of products and services. The 2023 order adopted a new definition of “prior express written consent” that would have prohibited consumers from giving consent to receive marketing calls from more than one company at a time or about products and services that were not “logically and topically associated with” those promoted on the website. The Eleventh Circuit held that the FCC exceeded its authority under the TCPA because the consent restrictions conflicted with the ordinary meaning of “prior express consent.” This decision is consistent with the recent shift in the willingness of federal courts to review administrative decisions after the Supreme Court overruled Chevron deference in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244 (2024).
Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an opinion denying class certification in a case under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) finding common issues did not predominate the individual inquires. The decision further clarified the application and constitutionality of the statute to unsolicited fax advertisements.
In a previous post, we discussed the oral arguments held on December 18, 2024, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in the case of Insurance Marketing Coalition Limited (IMC) v. Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The case challenged the FCC’s December 2023 order under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which aimed to reduce unwanted robocalls and texts by closing the “lead generator loophole” and requiring “one-to-one consent” for telemarketing communications. The new rule was set to take effect on January 27, 2025. However, during oral arguments, the Eleventh Circuit judges expressed skepticism about the FCC’s justification for its new rule.
On January 21, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corporation. As discussed here, the primary issue is whether the Hobbs Act, which limits judicial review of Federal Communications Commission (FCC) “final orders” to appellate courts, requires district courts to accept the FCC legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). While the Supreme Court previously addressed whether the Hobbs Act applied in private litigation, it ultimately did not resolve whether a district court is required to follow a particular FCC order interpreting the TCPA.
In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, host Chris Willis is joined by Partners Virginia Flynn and Chad Fuller for the first edition of a special year-in-review series. Together, they provide a comprehensive analysis of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) developments from 2024 and offer predictions for 2025. The discussion covers key changes, including the upcoming one-to-one consent rule, the impact of key cases, and other significant TCPA trends. This episode is essential for staying ahead in the evolving landscape of TCPA compliance. Stay tuned for more year-in-review content!
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Florida affirmed a trial court’s holding that claims under the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA) cannot not be assigned. In KAC 2021-1, LLC v. Mary T. Matuskah Irrevocable Trust, the plaintiff was an assignee of a tenant who leased property from the defendant trust. The tenant failed to make her monthly payments for four months and the defendant posted an “8-Day Notice” on her front door, which stated the amount due and demanded payment of the rent or possession of the property. The tenant alleged the notice faced outward so it could be seen by anyone and was specifically seen by the FedEx driver who dropped off a package, embarrassing her.