According to a recent report by WebRecon, the month of May saw a jump significant from the previous month in filings under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), however, remained down.
On June 1, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in Dickson v. Direct Energy, LP, holding that the plaintiff’s claims that he received a single ringless voicemail (RVM) for commercial purposes satisfy the demands of Article III because his alleged injury under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) constitutes a concrete harm.
In Dickson, the plaintiff alleged that Direct Energy delivered multiple RVMs to his cellular phone advertising its services. RVM technology allows a party to deposit voicemails directly into a recipient’s voicemail box, without having to place a traditional call to the recipient’s wireless phone. During discovery, an expert witness concluded that of the multiple RVMs the plaintiff received, only one originated from Direct Energy. The trial court held that the plaintiff’s receipt of a single RVM did not constitute concrete harm sufficient for Article III standing because: (1) the plaintiff could not recall what he was doing at the time he received the RVM, (2) the plaintiff was not charged for the RVM, (3) the RVM did not tie up the plaintiff’s phone line, and (4) the plaintiff spent a small amount of time reviewing the RVM.
According to a recent report by WebRecon, the month of April saw a significant reduction from the previous month in filings under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), as well as a reduction in complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
On May 10, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal issued an opinion in Pet Supermarket, Inc. v. Eldridge, holding that the plaintiff and putative class representative lacked standing to pursue his class action lawsuit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). In Eldridge, the plaintiff visited a Pet Supermarket store where he learned
On May 2, the Florida legislature passed amendments to the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA) that would drastically narrow its scope and presumably cut down on the number of class actions filed pursuant to it. The bill will take effect immediately after it is signed by Governor DeSantis.
Among other things, the proposed amendments would:
As discussed here, on April 7, the Washington State legislature passed HB 1051, also known as the Robocall Scam Protection Act, expanding the scope of existing provisions of Washington’s consumer protection laws regulating robocalls and telephone solicitations to prohibit abusive telephone communication practices. On April 20, Governor Inslee signed the bill into law. It
On April 13, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion affirming a district court’s summary judgment order on the grounds that under Borden v. eFinancial, LLC, discussed here, to qualify as an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) the telephone system must store or produce randomly or sequentially
On April 7, the Washington State legislature passed HB 1051, also known as the Robocall Scam Protection Act, which expands the scope of existing provisions of Washington’s consumer protection laws regulating robocalls and telephone solicitations to prohibit abusive telephone communication practices. HB 1051 will become law once it is signed by Governor Inslee.
HB
On April 4, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas declined to increase or treble the plaintiff’s $8,500 jury trial damages awarded under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) after failing to find that the defendant acted willfully or knowingly under TCPA § 227(c)(5)(B). Indeed, the judge cut the award to $6,500.
A federal district court in the Western District of New York recently denied in part a motion for summary judgment in a case alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) based on collection calls and prerecorded voice messages. Specifically, the court found the defendant had not provided sufficient evidence that the plaintiff provided