On January 14, 2021, the Court of Common Pleas in Cuyahoga County, Ohio denied a healthcare foundation’s motion to dismiss, ruling that healthcare clinics and hospitals are not “physicians,” as that term is defined in the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, and accordingly, are not exempt from liability resulting from consumer transactions. The case, Brakle

A federal court in California has ruled that the plaintiff in a putative class action alleging theft of non-sensitive personal information arising from a cybersecurity data breach lacks Article III standing to maintain his claims. In Rahman v. Marriott International, Inc., the Plaintiff asserted claims for violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”),

In True Health Chiropractic Inc., et al. v. McKesson Corp., et al., the Northern District of California held that it was divested of jurisdiction by the Hobbs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2342, and thus could not reconsider the validity of a declaratory ruling rendered by the Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau of the Federal

On appeal in Grigorian v. FCA US LLC, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the holding of Judge Cooke, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, that Mariam Grigorian (“Mariam”), Plaintiff and Appellant, lacked Article III standing in her Telephone Consumer Protection Act claim against FCA US, LLC (“FCA”), Defendant and

In a new decision slated for publication, the Sixth Circuit weighed in on an issue under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA): whether a “benign language” exception exists to a flat prohibition of substantive information appearing on an envelope containing a letter from a debt collector. The Sixth Circuit took a strict reading of

The Supreme Court granted cert in Ramirez v. TransUnion LLC to consider “whether either Article III or Rule 23 permits a damages class action where the vast majority of the class suffered no actual injury, let alone an injury anything like what the class representative suffered.” This development is a welcomed opportunity for clarity in

In Riccio v. Client Services, Inc., the District Court of New Jersey dismissed a class action lawsuit finding that a failure to assure a consumer that statements in a letter would not change in the future was not materially misleading under the least sophisticated debtor test.

On February 13, 2020, Joanne Riccio received a

Plaintiffs John Slomanski and Margaret Brusewitz brought an FDCPA class action, Slomanski and Brusewitz v. Alliance Collection Agencies, in the Eastern District of Wisconsin alleging that debt collection letters sent to them and other class members were misleading and violated §1692e of the FDCPA. They alleged that the letters were misleading because they listed

In a putative class action, Santoro v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 2020 WL 6586630, 19-CV-9782 (CS) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2020), District Court Judge Cathy Seibel dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a violation of New York General Business Law (“GBL”) § 399-zzz, which is enforceable through GBL