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 Hill v. Homeward Residential, here, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected the contention that consent to be called on one's cellular telephone can only be given at the inception of the transaction and not during the life of the transaction.  "The Telephone Consumer Protection Act prohibits companies from making automated calls to a person’s cellphone without… Read More

In Reardon v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 2015 WL 4451209 (N.D.Cal., 2015), Judge Tigar dismissed part of a TCPA class action filed against Uber for recruitment texts to potential drivers. Here, Uber argues that the text messages it allegedly sent cannot be said to “constitute telemarketing” or to “include or introduce an advertisement” because the texts do not promote its provision… Read More

ACA International, the national debt collectors' trade organization, sued the FCC to challenge the FCC's declaratory ruling on the TCPA.  A copy of the lawsuit can be found here:  ACA Petition for Review 7-13-15. The ACA's press-release described the substance and purpose of their action: ACA International has been at the forefront of a long-time effort to clarify application and… Read More

The FCC's Omnibus Ruling, along with the comments of Commissioners Wheeler, Clyburn, Rosenworcel, Pai, and O'Rielly can be found here. We will be evaluating the Ruling, and Commissioners' comments.   For questions regarding the Ruling and its impacts, please contact the group leaders of Severson & Werson's TCPA team, Eric Troutman (ejt@severson.com) or Scott Hyman (sjh@severson.com). Read More

In Smith v. NCO Financial Systems, Inc.,  2015 WL 2185252 (E.D. Cal. 2015), Judge Delaney dismissed an in pro per's TCPA complaint. Defendant moves to dismiss the TCPA claim on three grounds: (1) plaintiff's exhibit attached to the complaint shows that the phone number called (916–929–4665) was different than that alleged in the complaint (916–918–9481) and plaintiff does not allege that the… Read More

In Alvarado v. Credit Protection Ass’n, L.P, 2015 WL 1815863 (M.D. Fla. 2015), Judge Covington held that, although a debtor consented to have his cell phone called when he provided the number in connection with the transaction creating the debt, a triable issue of fact existed as to whether a “pre-suit demand letter” constituted revocation of consent. Here, when Plaintiff… Read More

In Soulliere v. Central Florida Inv., Inc., 2015 WL 1311046 (M.D.Fla. 2015), Judge Whittemore found that a non-subscriber/regular user of a cellphone had standing to bring a TCPA claim and that there was a triable issue of fact regarding whether there was consent or whether such consent had been revoked. Defendants argue that Plaintiff does not have standing because he… Read More

In Baisden v. Credit Adjustments, Inc., 2015 WL 1046186 (S.D.Ohio 2015), Judge Sargus found that a Hospital’s intake procedures provided sufficient documentationt that a patient consented to be called by an autodialer on his cellular telephone by the Hospital’s affiliate, an anesthesiologist as well as by the anesthesiologist’s debt collection agency. In accordance with this reasoning, this Court finds Plaintiffs'… Read More

In Wallace v. Optimum Outcomes, Inc., 2015 WL 627944 (E.D.N.C. 2015), Judge Flanagan entered summary judgment for a TCPA plaintiff who had told a debt collector not to call anymore on one cell phone number but continued to receive calls on another cell phone number. Pertinent to the facts of this case and the earlier one intertwined with it, initiated… Read More

In Daniels v. ComUnity Lending, Inc., 2015 WL 541299 (S.D.Cal. 2015), Judge Hayes properly analyzed the distinction between the TCPA’s regulation of cellular and residential lines. The Moving Defendants contend that Plaintiffs have failed to state a violation of the TCPA for making calls to Plaintiffs' residential telephone lines because the Moving Defendants had an established business relationship with Plaintiffs,… Read More

1 3 4 5 6 7 16