Photo of Virginia Bell Flynn

Virginia Bell Flynn

Subscribe to Virginia Bell Flynn's Posts

Virginia is a partner in the firm’s Consumer Financial Services practice and specifically within the Financial Services Litigation practice. She represents clients in federal and state court, both at the trial and appellate level in the areas of complex litigation and business disputes, health care litigation, including ERISA and out-of-network issues, and consumer litigation in over 21 states nationwide. As a result of new legal developments, she increasingly counsels clients to ensure they comply with the myriad of growing laws in the consumer law with a particular emphasis on the intersection of TCPA and HIPAA.

Follow:Read more about Virginia Bell FlynnVirginia Bell's Linkedin Profile

On June 12, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission) published a request for public comment seeking comments and suggestions on effective coordination efforts with state attorneys general nationwide to help educate and protect consumers from potential fraud. This comes at the direction of the FTC Collaboration Act of 2021, which was signed into law last October by President Joe Biden.

The Collaboration Act directs the FTC to “conduct a study on facilitating and refining existing efforts with State Attorneys to prevent, publicize, and penalize frauds and scams being perpetrated on individuals in the United States.”

On June 1, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in Dickson v. Direct Energy, LP, holding that the plaintiff’s claims that he received a single ringless voicemail (RVM) for commercial purposes satisfy the demands of Article III because his alleged injury under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) constitutes a concrete harm.

In Dickson, the plaintiff alleged that Direct Energy delivered multiple RVMs to his cellular phone advertising its services. RVM technology allows a party to deposit voicemails directly into a recipient’s voicemail box, without having to place a traditional call to the recipient’s wireless phone. During discovery, an expert witness concluded that of the multiple RVMs the plaintiff received, only one originated from Direct Energy. The trial court held that the plaintiff’s receipt of a single RVM did not constitute concrete harm sufficient for Article III standing because: (1) the plaintiff could not recall what he was doing at the time he received the RVM, (2) the plaintiff was not charged for the RVM, (3) the RVM did not tie up the plaintiff’s phone line, and (4) the plaintiff spent a small amount of time reviewing the RVM.

As discussed here, D.K. et al. v. United Behavioral Health et al. is a case that has been carefully watched in the health benefits space for its potential to change what health plan administrators must include in adverse benefit determination letters. On May 15, 2023, the Tenth Circuit issued its opinion affirming the district…

The Sixth Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Michigan Regulation of Collection Practices Act (RCPA) suit, holding that the plaintiff lacked standing. The litigation, Van Vleck v. Leikin, Ingber, & Winters, P.C., arose from the defendant law firm’s service of process on the plaintiff…

On May 10, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal issued an opinion in Pet Supermarket, Inc. v. Eldridge, holding that the plaintiff and putative class representative lacked standing to pursue his class action lawsuit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). In Eldridge, the plaintiff visited a Pet Supermarket store where he learned…

In Bemero v. Lloyd & McDaniel, PC, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted a motion to dismiss in a Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) case where the Model Validation Notice (MVN) was undated, finding the plaintiff lacked standing because she did not allege a concrete injury.

The defendant…

On May 2, the Florida legislature passed amendments to the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA) that would drastically narrow its scope and presumably cut down on the number of class actions filed pursuant to it. The bill will take effect immediately after it is signed by Governor DeSantis.

Among other things, the proposed amendments would:…

As discussed here, on April 7, the Washington State legislature passed HB 1051, also known as the Robocall Scam Protection Act, expanding the scope of existing provisions of Washington’s consumer protection laws regulating robocalls and telephone solicitations to prohibit abusive telephone communication practices. On April 20, Governor Inslee signed the bill into law. It…

On April 13, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion affirming a district court’s summary judgment order on the grounds that under Borden v. eFinancial, LLC, discussed here, to qualify as an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) the telephone system must store or produce randomly or sequentially…

As discussed here, administrators’ health plan benefit denial letters have recently been under scrutiny by the courts. For example, in D.K. et al. v. United Behavioral Health et al., the Tenth Circuit is reviewing a district court’s decision that health plan benefit denial letters must contain more fulsome discussions of the administrator’s determination…