During these challenging times, Severson & Werson remains open and in full operation, consistent with the firm’s previously established contingency planning. While many of our attorneys and staff will be working remotely, as a firm, we continue in full operation. We are here to help, as always.

CEB Prac. Guide § 2B.15: Prior Express Consent

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 Van Patten v. Vertical Fitness Group, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a plaintiff who alleges he received unconsented to text messages or telephone calls has standing to bring a TCPA claim against the sender. Unwanted messages invade privacy interests that are similar to interests protected at common law and to which Congress gave statutory protection.… Read More

In St. Clair v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. 2016 WL 7489047, at *2 (N.D.Cal., 2016), Judge Chhabria denied a motion to dismiss a TCPA grounded in automated calls reminding of prescription refills. Another strike against CVS's argument is that the FCC has addressed automated prescription reminders in a different context. In addition to the two statutory exemptions to TCPA liability (“emergency purposes”… Read More

In Lawrence v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, --- Fed.Appx. ----2016 WL 7407243 (11th Cir. 2016), the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit found that a TCPA re-established consent to be called by an autodialer when he gave his telephone number again to the caller without qualification. Lawrence argues that the District Court erred by finding that, as a matter of law,… Read More

In Warciak v. One, Inc., 2016 WL 7374278 (Approx. 5 pages), Judge Kennelly allowed a TCPA claim to proceed against a social networking app. One argues that the After School App functions just like TextMe and therefore that its users initiate the allegedly unlawful text messages. Def.'s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss 9–10. But Warciak's allegations identify significant differences between… Read More

In Chladni v. University of Phoenix, Inc., 2016 WL 6600045, at *3 (E.D.Pa., 2016), Judge Leeson found that a TCPA Plaintiff could not invalidate her consent to receive autodialed calls on the basis that she was not given a meaningful opportunity to avoid them. It is undisputed that on June 22, 2015, when Chladni submitted a job application online, she… Read More

In Wick v. Twilio Inc., 2016 WL 6460316, at *2–3 (W.D.Wash., 2016), Judge Lasnik dismissed a TCPA Plaintiff's claim against Twilio on the basis that the Plaintiff consented to receive the text messages at issue. The parties disagree as to whether the text and call at issue qualifies as telemarketing. If the text and call do qualify as telemarketing, then… Read More

In Aderhold v. Car2Go N.A., LLC,  2016 WL 4709873 (9th Cir. 2016), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a TCPA plaintiff consented to receive texts messages as part of the registration process for a car-sharing program. Eric Aderhold appeals the district court's dismissal of his putative class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C.… Read More

In Reyes v. Educational Credit Management Corporation, 2016 WL 2944294, at *3 (S.D.Cal., 2016), Judge Bashant granted summary judgment to a TCPA defendant on the basis that the Plaintiff gave express consent to be called on his cellular telephone.  As to one of the calls wherein the Plaintiff gave oral consent during that call, the Court found that the Plaintiff had… Read More

In McCaskill v. Navient Solutions, 2016 WL 1367228 (M.D. Fla. 2016), here, Judge Covington of the USDC for the Middle District of Florida granted partial summary judgment to a TCPA plaintiff whose cellular telephone received 727 telephone calls to her cellular telephone arising from collection on student loans taken out by her daughter.  Since the defendant bore the burden to prove, but could… Read More

In Schwartz-Earp v. Advanced Call Center Technologies, LLC, 2016 WL 899149, at *1-2 (N.D.Cal., 2016), Magistrate Judge James denied summary judgment to a debt collector under the FDCPA, but granted summary judgment against the Plaintiff on her TCPA/common law claims. The facts were as follows: On or about February 3, 2014, Plaintiff applied in-store for a JCPenney-branded credit card, issued… Read More

1 2 3 4 5 17