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

The Eleventh Circuit has now joined seven other circuits in holding that receipt of unwanted text messages constitutes concrete injury for standing. On July 24, the Eleventh Circuit issued an en banc decision in Drazen v. Pinto, holding that a plaintiff who received a single, unwanted text message has standing to sue under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The court departed from its earlier ruling in Salcedo v. Hanna, which held that a single unsolicited text message is but a “brief, inconsequential annoyance [] categorically distinct from those kinds of real but intangible harms” that confer Article III standing.

More than two years after the Supreme Court released its ruling in Facebook v. Duguid, confirming the meaning of automatic telephone dialing systems (ATDS) under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), a plaintiff has filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court to challenge the Ninth Circuit’s application of the Facebook decision. The Facebook ruling effectively closed the door on one of the broadest classes of TCPA-related litigation; since then, plaintiff-side advocates have worked ceaselessly, though largely unsuccessfully, to chip away at the ruling. If the Supreme Court accepts the appeal, this will represent a significant development in the ongoing saga of ATDS litigation.

On June 29, 2023, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking clarifying how consumers may revoke consent to receive calls or texts under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The FCC is accepting comments on the proposed rule until July 31, 2023.

On June 28, a magistrate judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio issued a report recommending that the defendant’s motion to dismiss be denied because the plaintiff had standing under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) even though the calls in question were not intended for the plaintiff.

On June 30, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff’s claims that she received five text messages to a cell number that she had placed on the National Do-Not-Call Registry satisfied the demands of Article III even though the actual user of the phone was her thirteen-year-old son.

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…