Litigation and Court Decisions

After looking at how the decision narrows the technology covered by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s automatic telephone dialing system definition, we discuss its implications for TCPA litigation going forward, including do-not-call and prerecorded call claims and the intersection with debt collection claims, and for regulatory compliance when making calls for telemarketing or lead generation,

Yesterday, in a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court limited the reach of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by narrowing what technology qualifies as an Automatic Telephone Dialing System.  In the wake of this development, members of Ballard Spahr’s Consumer Financial Services Group recorded a conversation that breaks down and analyzes what the Court’s

Today, in a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court limited the reach of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) by narrowing what technology qualifies as an Automatic Telephone Dialing System (“ATDS”).  Among other restrictions, the TCPA prohibits calls to phone numbers using an ATDS without prior express consent.  The TCPA defines an ATDS as “equipment

After reviewing the legal developments leading to this surging litigation phenomenon and describing its use by plaintiffs’ attorneys, we discuss the courts’ position on mass arbitration, short-and long-term strategies for companies to consider in addressing the risks of mass arbitration demands, including revisions to arbitration agreements, changes to AAA’s fee schedule, and policy implications.

Ballard

After examining why TCPA cases alleging autodialer claims have fallen into disfavor with plaintiffs’ attorneys, we discuss the increasing volume of TCPA cases involving do-not-call (DNC) claims.  Topics include how the DNC registries operate, coverage of the TCPA DNC prohibitions, elements of a DNC claim, exceptions and defenses, penalties and other available relief, and arguments

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has rejected a debtor’s claims that a collection letter she received from a law firm violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because the letter stated “[i]f you wish to eliminate further collection action, please contact us at [this toll-free number].”  As a result, it affirmed

In a case of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a debt collector’s mistake about the time-barred status of a debt under state law can qualify as a bona fide error within the meaning of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

In Kaiser v. Cascade Capital, LLC,

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held oral argument last week in the OCC’s appeal from the district court’s final judgment in the lawsuit filed by the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) seeking to block the OCC’s issuance of special purpose national bank (SPNB) charters to non-depository fintech companies.

In

A magistrate judge has denied the CFPB’s motion for partial dismissal of the lawsuit filed in a Massachusetts federal district court challenging the creation of the CFPB’s Taskforce on Federal Consumer Financial Law.  The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are the National Association of Consumer Advocates (NACA), U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG), and Professor

The OCC has filed a reply in support of its cross-motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit filed by state AGs to enjoin the OCC’s final rule (Rule) purporting to override the Second Circuit’s Madden decision as to national banks and federal savings associations.  The filing of the OCC’s reply concludes the briefing on the