The Ninth Circuit in L.A. Lakers v. Federal Ins. Co., No. 15-55777 (9th Cir. August 23, 2017), ruled that a D&O policy’s invasion of privacy exclusion barred coverage for a claim alleging that the insured violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). The plaintiff in the TCPA case alleged that he had responded via
Spokeo Update: Ninth Circuit Holds that Plaintiff Adequately Alleged Article III Standing
On August 15, 2017, the Ninth Circuit issued its decision on remand in Spokeo, reversing and remanding the case to the District Court after finding that the named Plaintiff, Thomas Robins, has standing to pursue his claims.
Background
In Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, Plaintiff Robins sued the “people search engine” for alleged violations
Arbitration Rule Compliance Date Set for March 19, 2018
Financial institutions with arbitration clauses in consumer contracts are on the clock. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) new Arbitration Rule was published in the Federal Register today, with an effective date of September 18, 2017 and a compliance date of March 19, 2018. Absent congressional action or successful litigation challenge, those financial institutions
CFPB Issues Rule Banning Class Action Waivers In Arbitration Provisions
On July 10, 2017, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued its long-awaited final rule banning class action waivers in arbitration provisions for covered entities, as well as requiring the covered entities to provide information to the CFPB regarding any efforts to compel arbitration. This rule is of significance to any financial services company that utilizes
New Federal Appeals Court Ruling Provides Ray of Sunshine for TCPA Defendants: Contractual Consent to Receive Calls Cannot be Revoked
Lawsuits under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) have become the second most common form of consumer protection claim brought in federal court. Many of these lawsuits are premised on the idea that a consumer has the absolute right to revoke previously given consent to receive calls. A calling party could be subject to statutory
Supreme Court Refuses to Extend the Scope of the FDCPA to Consumer Finance Company
On June 12, 2017, the United States Supreme Court rendered a unanimous decision holding that a company collecting debts that it purchased for its own account does not meet the statutory definition of “debt collector” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) because the debts are no longer “owed or due another.” We previously
Join Us for a Complimentary Webinar: “The CHOICE Act Passed the House: Now What? An Update on Financial Industry Regulation Under the Trump Administration”
On Thursday, June 29, from 3-4 p.m. ET, Troutman Sanders attorneys Ashley Taylor, Alan Wingfield and Mary Zinsner will present a webinar examining the current status and prospects for the Financial CHOICE Act 2.0, deregulation and the rollback of Dodd Frank, and the ongoing courtroom attacks on the CFPB. The webinar will also cover recent
WV Appellate Court Finds High Volume of Unanswered Calls Alone Does Not Violate § 46A-2-125(d)
On June 12, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed a Circuit Court ruling and stated that a high volume of telephone calls from a debt collector to a consumer, absent any evidence the debt collector placed the calls with an intent to annoy, abuse, oppress, or threaten the consumer, is not sufficient
CFPB Updates Its Planned Overhaul of Acceptable Debt Collection Practices
In July of 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau released an outline of new rules targeting third-party debt-collection operations. The new rules targeted various areas including: Debt validation, Limits on Contact, Consumer Disputes, and Deceased Consumers. At the time, the CFPB stated it planned to release rules relevant to first-party creditors at a later
NY AG Settles with IoT Company over Security Practices
On May 22, 2017, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced a settlement with Safetech Products LLC (“Safetech”) over allegations that the Internet of Things (IoT) company sold insecure wireless door and padlocks. According to the Attorney General, the settlement marks the first time a state Attorneys General has taken legal action against a wireless