In Cassandra Valentine v. Unifund CCR, Inc. et al., the District Court of New Jersey dismissed the plaintiff’s claim that a benign company name appearing on a debt collection letter through the glassine window of an envelope constituted a violation of the FDCPA if an internet search could reveal the name as belonging to

This case was brought on behalf of a class of 72 female sales professionals employed by clothing retailer John Varvatos Enterprises, Inc. (Varvatos), alleging that Varvatos’s clothing allowance policy, which included giving free clothing to male sales professionals but not female sales professionals, violated various federal and state anti-discrimination laws. Knox v. John Varvatos Enterprises

A federal magistrate judge in the Northern District of California approved a class settlement of nearly $175,000 for an alleged violation of the FCRA’s stand-alone disclosure requirement. The class was comprised of over 1,000 job applicants who signed a standard form as part of their application, which included both a consumer report disclosure and a

A recent decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia underscores the significance of issues of proof when trying to enforce arbitration agreements. The case is Proctor v. First Premier Corp., No. 1:20-cv-02162-BAH, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6502 (D.D.C. Jan. 13, 2021).

Plaintiff Charnita Proctor sued First Premier Corp. (FPC) for

In Frank Gilbert v. I.C. System, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in a FDCPA class action, holding that the corporate declaration offered by the defendant was insufficient to prove that the plaintiff actually saw and agreed to the account terms

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal for lack of standing in a data incident case. The majority opinion, written by Senior Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat and joined by Judge Adalberto Jordan and Senior Fourth Circuit Judge William Traxler sitting by designation, highlighted the disagreement among federal appellate courts about the type of harm

In Cherry v. Dometic Corp., the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that, when addressing a motion for class certification, courts may consider whether the named plaintiff has demonstrated an administratively feasible method for identifying absent class members, but administrative feasibility is not a standalone requirement. In reaching its decision, the Eleventh Circuit waded

Last week, Judge Sue Myerscough declined to certify a class of employees whose personal information was disclosed when Driveline Retail Merchandising fell prey to a phishing scam. While nearly 16,000 employees were allegedly affected, “issues of causation and injury” were insufficiently common to satisfy the requirements for class certification.

The factual background will resonate with

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”),