In Aley v. Lightfire Partners, LLC, a U.S. District Court in the Northern District of New York certified aa Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action for all persons whose telephone numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry (DNC) but who received more than one telemarketing call from the defendant based on alleged consent given to a third-party website.
In a recent ruling, a U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss a complaint brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The complaint alleged that the plaintiff received multiple communications from the defendant despite not having provided prior consent and being on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. The court found that the communications were not “solicitations” under the TCPA because the messages were aimed at recruiting the plaintiff for employment and that the complaint insufficiently alleged that the defendant used an automated telephone dialing system (ATDS) or that the voicemail was prerecorded.
A proposed class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against EarnIn, a FinTech provider of Earned Wage Access services, alleging that its optional fees and tips constitute hidden interest payments. The complaint claims that EarnIn’s practices violate Georgia’s Payday Loan Act and the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently dismissed an appeal in the case of Lewis v. Becerra, Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The appellants sought to challenge the district court’s denial of class certification despite having won their individual claims for Medicare reimbursement. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of Article III standing, emphasizing that the appellants did not demonstrate a concrete, individual injury from the denial of class certification.
In Soliman v. Subway Franchisee Advertising Fund Trust, Ltd, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending a text message to her cell phone using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) and which utilized an “artificial or prerecorded voice.” The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to dismiss the case because the TCPA did not apply.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently reversed a district court’s ruling, which had denied a motion to compel arbitration of Opportunity Financial (OppFi) on the basis that the arbitration clause was substantively unconscionable due to the choice of law provision in the loan agreement containing the arbitration clause. The Ninth Circuit vacated the decision and directed the district court to refer the matter to arbitration.
On March 14, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin vetoed House Bill (HB) 418 that would have created a vehicle for class actions in Virginia state courts and would have broadened statutory damages under the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA).
Virginia is currently one of only two states that does not allow class-action lawsuits in its courts. However, that could change soon as House Bill (HB) 418, originally introduced on January 10, 2024, seeks to create a class-action framework loosely modeled on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On February 9, HB 418 passed the House of Delegates and will be sent to the Senate for consideration.
Recently, Lead Bank and its loan servicer Hyphen, LLC, an online lending platform operating Helix Financial, filed a motion to dismiss a purported class action alleging violations of the Georgia Installment Loan Act (GILA) and Georgia racketeering law arising out of a consumer installment or “payday loan.” Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the loan agreement between herself and Lead Bank was “nothing more than a façade, and a temporary one at that” in an attempt to evade Georgia’s restrictions on payday lending.
In Career Counseling, Inc. v. Amerifactors Financial Group, LLC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld a district court’s decision denying class certification in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) case on the basis that the plaintiff failed to satisfy Rule 23’s “implicit further requirement of ascertainability.” The Fourth Circuit also upheld summary judgment against the defendant as to the individual claim finding the defendant was indeed the “sender” of the fax at issue. Each finding is discussed more fully below.