According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were up for the month. Year-to-date everything is up compared to 2023.
According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) were down for the month. Yet, complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were up. Year-to-date everything is up compared to 2023. CFPB complaints are up by a whooping 110.6%!
Late last year, we discussed the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) new rule aimed at closing the “lead generator” loophole by requiring telemarketers to obtain one-to-one consent from consumers for robocalls and robotexts. This rule mandates that consent must be provided for each individual seller or brand, rather than allowing a single consent to apply to multiple telemarketers. The rule also includes requirements for clear and conspicuous disclosures and ensures that robocalls and robotexts are logically and topically related to the interaction that prompted the consent. The new rule also permits blocking “red flagged” robotexting numbers, codifies do-not-call rules for texting, and encourages an opt-in approach for delivering email-to-text messages.
Recently, a U.S. District Court in the District of New Mexico denied a defendant’s motion for summary judgment on Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) claims for telemarketing calls, finding genuine questions of fact about the defendant’s direct liability, actual authority over agents making the calls, whether the system used to make the calls is an Automatic Telephone Dialing System (ATDS), and whether there is a private right of action under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(4). The court granted summary judgment only on claims regarding apparent authority for the agents who called and ratification of the agents’ actions.
As discussed here, on February 15, 2024, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved amendments to the rules and regulations implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). These amendments were purportedly aimed at strengthening consumers’ ability to revoke consent to robocalls and robotexts. Last month, the FCC announced that the new rules go into effect on April 11, 2025.
According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were up for the month. Year-to-date everything is up compared to 2023.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has announced new effective dates for amendments to rules under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) aimed at strengthening consumer protections against robocalls and robotexts. These amendments, published on March 5, 2024, will take effect on April 11, 2025.
On October 4, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case of McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corporation. This case will address a critical question that has been a point of contention among various circuit courts: whether the Hobbs Act, which limits judicial review of Federal Communications Commission (FCC) “final orders” to appellate courts, requires district courts to accept the FCC legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). 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 FCC order interpreting the TCPA.
On September 19, USTelecom — The Broadband Association (USTelecom), a major telecommunications trade organization, sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) expressing its concerns about the proposed enhancements to anti-robocall regulations. USTelecom’s primary contention is that the proposed rules, which aim to extend the do-not-originate (DNO) requirement, could inadvertently block legitimate calls, including emergency communications. The association argues that the current industry practices already effectively block calls from invalid, unallocated, and unused numbers, as well as numbers on the DNO list managed by the USTelecom-led Industry Traceback Group (ITG).
In Aley v. Lightfire Partners, LLC, a U.S. District Court in the Northern District of New York certified aa Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action for all persons whose telephone numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry (DNC) but who received more than one telemarketing call from the defendant based on alleged consent given to a third-party website.