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 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.

On December 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held oral arguments in Insurance Marketing Coalition Limited (IMC) v. Federal Communication Commission (FCC), which challenges the FCC’s December 2023 order under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The stated aim of the order is to reduce unwanted robocalls and texts by closing the “lead generator loophole,” and require “one-to-one consent” for telemarketing communications. The new rule is set to take effect next month. However, during oral arguments, the Eleventh Circuit judges expressed skepticism about the FCC’s justification for its new rule.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently affirmed that a debt collector did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when it threatened legal action to collect debts that were still within the applicable statute of limitations.

The New Mexico Supreme Court recently confirmed consumer standing to pursue state law claims against a credit union after it pursued debt collection lawsuits against its members in the New Mexico magistrate courts. Several members filed a class action lawsuit against the credit union for the unauthorized practice of law and under the Unfair Practices Act (UPA), but the trial court dismissed the case, finding the plaintiffs lacked standing. The court of appeals reversed and the Supreme Court affirmed, finding the plaintiffs had standing to bring claims under both the statute prohibiting the unlicensed practice of law and the UPA.

Recently, a U.S. District Court in the District of New Mexico denied a defendant’s motion for summary judgment on Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) claims for telemarketing calls, finding genuine questions of fact about the defendant’s direct liability, actual authority over agents making the calls, whether the system used to make the calls is an Automatic Telephone Dialing System (ATDS), and whether there is a private right of action under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(4). The court granted summary judgment only on claims regarding apparent authority for the agents who called and ratification of the agents’ actions.

As discussed here, on February 15, 2024, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved amendments to the rules and regulations implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). These amendments were purportedly aimed at strengthening consumers’ ability to revoke consent to robocalls and robotexts. Last month, the FCC announced that the new rules go into effect on April 11, 2025.

On October 4, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case of McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corporation. This case will address a critical question that has been a point of contention among various circuit courts: 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.

On September 19, USTelecom — The Broadband Association (USTelecom), a major telecommunications trade organization, sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) expressing its concerns about the proposed enhancements to anti-robocall regulations. USTelecom’s primary contention is that the proposed rules, which aim to extend the do-not-originate (DNO) requirement, could inadvertently block legitimate calls, including emergency communications. The association argues that the current industry practices already effectively block calls from invalid, unallocated, and unused numbers, as well as numbers on the DNO list managed by the USTelecom-led Industry Traceback Group (ITG).