On September 15, the Court of Appeals of the State of Washington reversed a lower court’s decision in Aaland v. CRST Home Solutions, LLC (CRST), holding that unsolicited text messages sent to recruit independent contractors qualified as “commercial” messages under the state’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA). The decision vastly expands the scope of the state statute.
The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) has finalized its rule under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), addressing prior express consent requirements for sellers to send advertisements and telemarketing notices using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) or artificial/prerecorded voice. Notably, the one-to-one requirement has been removed.
According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were all up for the month of July. Year over year, only FDCPA complaints have decreased, and not by much.
On July 24, Oregon Governor Tina Kotek signed House Bill 3865 (HB 3865) into law, introducing significant changes to the regulation of telephone solicitations within the state. This new legislation narrows the permissible calling hours, reducing communications during late evening hours by prohibiting calls after 8 p.m., down from the previous 9 p.m. Additionally, the bill expands the definition of telephone solicitations to include text messages.
On July 14, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) secured a court order aimed at halting allegedly deceptive practices against seven companies and three individuals operating the “Accelerated Debt” program. The defendants allegedly contacted consumers through telemarketing calls or in response to calls resulting from their mail and online ads and made false claims about their ability to substantially reduce consumer debts and misleading consumers about fees. The FTC alleged these actions violated the FTC Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, the Impersonation Rule, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), and § 521 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act by making false statements to get consumers’ financial account numbers. The court’s order includes a temporary restraining order, asset freeze, and the appointment of a temporary receiver to oversee the defendants’ business operations.
According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were all up for the month. Only Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) filings were down for May.
WebRecon reports the overall statistics for
On June 20, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. —- — S.Ct. —- 2025 WL 1716136 (2025), addressing whether, under the Administrative Orders Review Act (Hobbs Act), 28 U.S.C. §2342, district courts are bound by the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Eleventh, and District of Columbia Circuits had held that because the Hobbs Act vests exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of FCC orders in the circuit (appellate) courts, district courts were bound by the FCC’s orders interpreting the TCPA.
Yesterday, Federal Communications Commissioner Olivia Trusty announced the appointment of several members to her team stating, “I am pleased to announce the talented individuals who will be joining my team. Each brings a wealth of experience, deep commitment to public service, and a shared passion for advancing the Commission’s mission. I look forward to working alongside them as we serve the American people.”
In a significant ruling today, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered its 6-3 opinion in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corporation, addressing the scope of judicial review under the Hobbs Act. The decision marks a pivotal moment in administrative law, particularly concerning the deference required to agency orders in enforcement proceedings. While the Supreme Court previously addressed whether the Hobbs Act applied in private litigation, it ultimately did not resolve whether a district court is required to follow a particular Federal Communications Commission (FCC) order interpreting the TCPA.
In response to the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) request for input on unnecessary compliance burdens, the debt collection industry, led by ACA International, is advocating for significant reforms to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Their primary focus is on eliminating rules that impose undue compliance burdens and conflict with existing debt collection regulations. Key proposals include the revocation of the “Revoke All” rule, restoration of the Established Business Relationship (EBR) exemption, and harmonization of TCPA rules with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).