California court vindicates HCI (once again) as not covered by TCPA, but finds 70 calls over four months potentially harassing
A recent California decision touched upon two recurring sources of lawsuits against debt collectors: whether calls are subject to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and whether the sheer number of calls can constitute harassment barred
It is common knowledge that class action lawsuits are expensive. And we know that many consumer class action lawsuits are filed without a proper class representative or with a class that is otherwise ill-defined, legally deficient, or unascertainable. Other purported Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action lawsuits present potentially dispositive issues from the outset, such
On September 30, the District of Nevada dismissed a plaintiff’s class claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act but permitted her individual claim to proceed. In Whittum v. Acceptance Now West LLC, plaintiff Roxanne Whittum alleged that Acceptance Now placed multiple calls to her using an automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”)
Last week, a United States District Court in Washington rejected a proposed TCPA class settlement in part because the class definition included an impermissible characterization of the disputed term of art: automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”). A copy of the Order is available here.
This TCPA class action involved allegations that the defendant made
One of the most ambitious (i.e., bad) arguments ever made by a defendant in a TCPA case was rejected by the Western District of New York in Gerrard v. Acara Sol. Inc., 1:18-cv-1041, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108038, 2019 WL 2647758 (W.D.N.Y. June 27, 2019). Acara Solutions argued their text messages with
A federal judge in Alabama has approved a putative class-action settlement in the amount of $1.15 million against Compass Bank to resolve a case brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) on behalf of non-customers who received unsolicited auto-dialer survey calls from the bank.
The case, Robert Hossfield, and all others similarly situated, vs.
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act discriminates between types of calls based on content: persons calling to seek collection of federal debts get an exemption from TCPA requirements, while other types of calls do not. Federal courts have split over whether this discrimination is constitutional, setting up in the long term a possible Supreme Court
On September 10, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered a $267 million judgment against a debt collection agency that made more than 534,000 telephone calls in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The judgment ended three years of class action litigation after plaintiff Ignacio Perez and two others alleged that defendant Rash Curtis & Associates
On August 27, the Central District of California denied Hyundai Motor America, Inc.’s motion to dismiss a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) class action complaint filed by plaintiff June Abe. In Abe v. Hyundai Motor America, Inc., the Court rejected Hyundai’s arguments that Abe failed to allege sufficient facts to support her claims that
Last week, the Eleventh Circuit held that a plaintiff did not have Article III standing to assert claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act based on his alleged receipt of a single unsolicited text message. In addition to defeating the plaintiff’s individual claims, the decision has complicated his path to asserting TCPA claims for a
