On February 20, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau released a compliance guide for small entities that summarizes payment-related provisions of the Payday Lending Rule.
The Payday Lending Rule governs payday loans, vehicle tile loans, and certain high-cost installment loans. The Guide focuses on the payment provisions of the Payday Lending rule, found in Subpart C
On February 22, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss in a Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (“DPPA”) putative class action, holding that the DPPA does not provide a private right of action against state officials in their official capacities. A copy
A group of 21 states and the District of Columbia submitted a comment letter opposing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s effort to revise and boost its Policy on No-Action Letters (“NAL Policy”) and the creation of a CFPB Product Sandbox. The NAL Policy and Product Sandbox will allow companies
The Federal Trade Commission has announced that it is retaining the CAN-SPAM Rule as is, deciding to keep the Rule unchanged as a result of a regulatory review. Hence, any business that sends marketing email must redouble efforts to comply with the CAN-SPAM Rule.
What is the CAN-SPAM Rule?
The CAN-SPAM Rule establishes requirements for
On January 22, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona found that a consumer had standing to pursue a claim under the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act. The case is Driesen v. RSI Enterprises Inc., No. 3:18-cv-08140-PCT-DWL (D. Ariz. Jan. 22, 2019).
The plaintiff, Kimberly Driesen, received phone
On February 13, a national class action lawsuit was filed against prepaid mobile phone operator Tracfone Wireless Inc., alleging that the company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending a text message advertisement via an automatic telephone dialing system, or “ATDS.”
Plaintiff Brian Gallant alleges that Tracfone sent him a
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) carries the risk of annihilative damages for class action defendants based on its remarkable statutory damages scheme. Because of this risk, the statute has been the subject of significant court and agency attention recently. And much of this attention – from the D.C. Circuit’s opinion in ACA International to
The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas recently granted summary judgment in favor of a debt collector, holding that letters sent with the same client account number for two different debts incurred with the same underlying creditor was not false, deceptive, or misleading or otherwise in violation of the Fair Debt
In a recent ruling, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s $10 million disgorgement order assessed jointly and severally not only against collection agencies but also their individual owners. The Second Circuit’s decision can be found here.
This case involved thirteen debt collection companies that operated pursuant to the same strategy:
Consistent with state data breach notification laws, the Neiman Marcus Group, LLC publicly announced in January 2014 that its customers’ payment card information had potentially been compromised at 77 Neiman Marcus retail locations between March 2013 and January 2014. In total, 370,000 credit cards were compromised as a result of the intrusion, and at least