The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey recently dismissed a putative Fair Debt Collection Practices Act class action against defendant debt collector, Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc. (“RMCB”), over allegedly violative letters dealing with unpaid E-ZPass tolls.  A copy of the opinion can be found here.

As background, plaintiff Thomas E.

The Ninth Circuit recently reversed a lower court’s dismissal of a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) putative class action against Adir International, LLC (“Adir”), holding that Plaintiff Ned Flores (“Flores”) sufficiently alleged that Adir used an automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”) to send text messages to Flores.

According to the First Amended Complaint, Adir is

BrandRep, the defendant in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act putative class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, recently settled putative nationwide class claims on an individual basis, resulting in dismissal of the case.  The settlement came on the heels of BrandRep’s assertion of counterclaims that put

Congress recently reintroduced a bill titled United States Call Center Worker and Consumer Protection Act of 2016, which attempts to deter companies from employing offshore call collection centers.  

The bill would require a business that employs 50 or more call center employees to notify the Department of Labor at least 120 days before relocating

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California recently granted summary judgment in favor of defendant United Student Aid Funds, Inc. (“USAF”) in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action, holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove that USAF is vicariously liable for the acts of its third party servicers.

In Hinderstein v. Advanced Call Ctr. Techs., No. 15-100017 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2017), a case alleging violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act before the United States District Court for the Central District of California, the Court found that a relatively high call

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau recently sued three law firms in the United States District Court for the Central District of California for collecting advance fees from consumers seeking debt relief.  CFPB Director Richard Cordray stated that “[t]he defendants exploited consumers who were already suffering financial difficulties by tricking them into paying steep, illegal fees.”

On February 27, the Federal Trade Commission filed a stipulated order, which includes a $9 million judgment, against another debt relief provider, United Debt Counselors, LLC, its owners, and officers (collectively “United”) for violating the FTC Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule.  This serves as another warning from the FTC that debt relief companies need

On February 8, 2017, the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice quietly issued new guidance on corporate compliance programs for companies implicated in misconduct. Specifically, the Criminal Division posted a set of “important topics and sample questions that the Fraud Section has frequently found relevant in evaluating a corporate compliance program” to the