Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)


Subscribe to Consumer Finance

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Consumer Finance Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

In BPP v. CaremarkPCS Health, L.L.C., No. 21-3791, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 31586 (8th Cir. Nov. 16, 2022), the Court of Appeals clarified the rules for “unsolicited advertisements” under the TCPA fax rules. We disagree with BPP's proposed interpretation of unsolicited advertisement. HN3 The TCPA does not ban all faxes that contain information about commercial goods or services, as BPP… Read More

In Mauthe v. Nat'l Imaging Assocs., No. 18-2119, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 11232 (3d Cir. Apr. 17, 2019), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found that a fax was not a solicitation for goods and services. Moreover, the fax did not tell Mauthe that he [*7]  could purchase healthcare management services from defendant or direct him to a website… Read More

In Supply Pro Sorbents, LLC, v. RingCentral, Inc., No. 17-16528, 2018 WL 6068590 (9th Cir. Nov. 16, 2018), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in an unpublished case affirmed the dismissal of a TCPA claim against an online fax service. Defendant RingCentral, Inc. (“RingCentral”) operates an online service that allows its customers to send faxes using a cover sheet… Read More

In Fulton, D.D.S., v. Enclarity, Inc., No. 17-1380, 2018 WL 5726133 (6th Cir. Nov. 2, 2018), the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit concluded that a fax sent to the dentists' office could constitute an “advertisement” that subjected the fax to the TCPA. Fulton alleged that the fax was a pretext to obtain both “participation in Defendants’ proprietary database”… Read More

In Physicians Healthsource, Inc., v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim Corporation, Medica, Inc.,  2017 WL 461002, at *4 (2d Cir. 2017), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit put some meat on the bones of whether a fax offering a "free seminar" triggers the TCPA. Requiring plaintiffs to plead specific facts alleging that specific products or services would… Read More

In S & A Tire and Auto, Inc. v. A.U.L. Corp., 2017 WL 345078, at *2 (E.D.Mo., 2017), Judge Nocell refused to dismiss a TCPA blast-fax case on the grounds that the invitation for on-line participation constituted advertisement under the TCPA. When viewing the facts pled by plaintiff in the light most favorable to plaintiff, they are sufficient to state… Read More

In ARcare v. IMS Health, Inc., 2016 WL 4967810, at *3 (E.D.Ark., 2016), Judge Holmes dismissed a TCPA blast-fax case on the basis that the faxes were not "advertisements. Accepting the complaint's allegations as true and drawing all inferences in ARcare's favor, the Court concludes that the faxes in dispute are non-commercial messages that fall outside that TCPA's ban on… Read More

In Vinny's Landscaping, Inc. v. United Auto Credit Corporation, 2016 WL 4801276, at *3 (E.D.Mich., 2016), Judge Cox allowed a TCPA-Junk Fax case past the pleading stage against an automobile finance company. The Sixth Circuit first addressed the issue of whether or not a fax constitutes an advertisement under the TCPA in 2015. See Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC v. Medco… Read More

In Alpha Tech Pet, Inc. v. Lagasse, LLC, 2016 WL 4678316, at *3–5 (N.D.Ill., 2016), Judge Durkin denied a motion to dismiss a blast fax case, finding that the faxes plausibly were advertisements. Here, all four faxes Defendants contest are plausibly advertisements. The March 15 and February 15 faxes provide the prices for certain goods and encourage customers to investigate… Read More

In Payton v. Kale Realty, LLC,  2016 WL 703869 (N.D. Ill. 2016), Judge Lefkow held that a web service was exempt from the TCPA. Regardless of plaintiffs' self-defeating argument, the undisputed facts establish that VoiceShot provides telecommunication services rather than information services. While plaintiff is correct that VoiceShot's services include data storage to allow users to store contact lists and past… Read More

In Grind Lap Services, Inc. v. UBM, LLC, 2015 WL 6955484, at *3 (N.D.Ill., 2015), Judge Gettlemen granted summary judgment to a TCPA Blast-Fax defendant, holding that the fax was not an advertisement. According to an order issued by the Commission, “messages whose purpose is to facilitate, complete, or confirm a commercial transaction that the recipient has previously agreed to enter… Read More