In a class action lawsuit against Pisa Group, Inc. for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), the plaintiff moved to certify a class of all persons in the United States who received more than one telephone solicitation call from defendant more than 31 days after registering their phone numbers with the National
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.
As discussed here, on July 27, 2022, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals sua sponte vacated the district court’s approval of a $35 million class-action settlement in Drazen and Godaddy.com, LLC (Godaddy) v. Pinto. Although the parties had not briefed the issue before the Eleventh Circuit, the court ruled that the class definition
On February 27, Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon signed into law House Bill 284, which requires debt buyers be licensed as “collection agencies” starting July 1, 2023.
The bill was introduced at the request of the Receivables Management Association International (RMAI) to address an emerging debate as to whether debt buyers should have been licensed
A district court in the Northern District of California recently denied in part a motion for judgment on the pleadings in a case alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and California’s Rosenthal Act involving collection texts sent to a consumer.
Recently, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held an arbitration provision impermissibly blocked rights afforded to a retirement plan participant under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and was therefore unenforceable.
As background, in Harrison v. Envision Management Holding, Inc. (Envision), the plaintiff, a former employee of Envision and participant in Envision’s defined contribution
As the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) considers whether DentalPlans.com’s (DentalPlans) plan renewal calls constitute telemarketing under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), multiple interested parties, including the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) and the Professional Associations for Customer Engagement (PACE), have submitted comments weighing in on DentalPlans’ petition.
As we discussed here, DentalPlans filed
Under ERISA claims procedure regulations, group health plans must provide a “full and fair” review of all claims submitted by plan participants. These claims procedure regulations provide a list of minimum standards, including determinations within a certain timeframe, specific content requirements of adverse notifications, and the opportunity to submit evidence through an internal administrative appeal
On January 19, a California Court of Appeals issued a decision calling into question the evidentiary value of electronic signatures. Dicta in the opinion directly contradicts a previous ruling in Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic, where the court stated the difference between physical and electronic signatures is a “distinction without a legal difference” because
In Snyder v. LVNV Funding LLC, et al., the plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit against LVNV Funding LLC (LVNV) and Sequium Asset Solutions, LLC (SAS), alleging a letter from SAS offering a settlement of her debt violated sections 1692e(2)(A) and 1692g(a)(1) of the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The court held