All Entries

Subscribe to All Entries via RSS

On July 14, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) filed a status report announcing its decision not to reissue its Medical Debt Collection Advisory Opinion, which had been issued in 2024 to “remind debt collectors of their obligations to comply with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act [FDCPA] and Regulation F’s prohibition on false, deceptive, or misleading representations or means in connection with the collection of any medical debt and unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any medical debt.” The Advisory Opinion had been challenged in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by ACA International and Collection Bureau Services, Inc.

California Senate Bill 940 (SB 940), enacted in late 2024, introduces several key changes to arbitrations involving “consumer contracts,” which is defined as a contract prepared by a seller and signed by a consumer for the sale or lease of goods or services or for the extension of credit purchased or used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. Below, we explore the major provisions of SB 940 and their implications.

On July 8, a panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued a significant decision in the case of Custom Communications, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The panel vacated the FTC’s amended Negative Option Rule aka the “click-to cancel” rule, citing procedural deficiencies in the rulemaking process. Specifically, the panel found that the FTC failed to conduct a required preliminary regulatory analysis, which deprived stakeholders of the opportunity to comment on alternatives and engage with the FTC’s cost-benefit analysis.

There has been a flurry of recent activity in a case originally filed by six air ambulance companies claiming $20 million in unpaid emergency services invoices. On June 11, Aetna filed a counterclaim against REACH Air Medical Services LLC, CALSTAR Air Medical Services LLC, Guardian Flight LLC, Med-Trans Corporation, Air Evac EMS Inc., and AirMed International LLC based on alleged manipulation of the Independent Dispute Resolution (IDR) process established under the No Surprises Act (NSA). On July 2, the plaintiffs moved to dismiss the counterclaim.

According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were all up for the month. Only Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) filings were down for May.

WebRecon reports the overall statistics for…

In a recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Texas Debt Collection Act (TDCA) case, finding three texts and three phone messages over eight weeks was not harassing and because the messages were clearly for another person, an unsophisticated consumer could not have thought defendants were attempting to collect a debt from the plaintiff.

On June 20, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. —- — S.Ct. —- 2025 WL 1716136 (2025), addressing whether, under the Administrative Orders Review Act (Hobbs Act), 28 U.S.C. §2342, district courts are bound by the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Eleventh, and District of Columbia Circuits had held that because the Hobbs Act vests exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of FCC orders in the circuit (appellate) courts, district courts were bound by the FCC’s orders interpreting the TCPA.