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.22: Revocation

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 Wright v. USAA Sav. Bank, No. 2:19-cv-00591 WBS CKD, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90576 (E.D. Cal. May 21, 2020), Judge Shubb found no revocation of consent under the TCPA where the consumer purposefully mailed the revocation letter to the wrong address. Under the facts presented here, no reasonable trier of fact could find that plaintiff used reasonable means to… Read More

In Medley v. Dish Network, No. 18-13841, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 14052, at *13-18 (11th Cir. May 1, 2020) , the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit followed the Second Circuit's Reyes decision, finding that contractual consent cannot be revoked under the TCPA. Finally, Medley appeals the district court's ruling in favor of DISH on her TCPA claim. The… Read More

In Franklin v. Navient Corp., Civil Action No. 17-1640-RGA, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150902, at *14-19 (D. Del. Sep. 5, 2019), the District Court declined to follow the Second Circuit's Reyes decision. The Court turns next to the calls placed [*15]  to Plaintiff prior to the November 2015 TCPA amendment. The evidence of record indicates that in each of Plaintiff's deferment requests,… Read More

In Lucoff v. Solutions, No. 18-CIV-60743-RAR, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133577 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 7, 2019), Judge Ruiz granted summary judgment against a TCPA Plaintiff. Because the Arthur Settlement places contractual restrictions on revocation, Plaintiff's reliance on Osorio is erroneous. In Osorio, the court determined that consumers were "free to orally revoke any consent previously given" only "in the absence… Read More

In Lucoff v. Navient Sols., LLC, No. 18-60743-CIV, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89879 (S.D. Fla. May 28, 2019), Judge McAlily found that a TCPA Plaintiff could not revoke contractually bargained for consent. The Eleventh Circuit has held that a consumer is "free to orally revoke any consent previously given" under the TCPA "in the absence of any [*11]  contractual restriction to… Read More

In Singer v. Las Vegas Ath. Clubs, No. 2:17-cv-01115-GMN-VCF, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48838 (D. Nev. Mar. 25, 2019), Judge Singer found the Second Circuit’s Reyes decision incompatible with Ninth Circuit precedent. Preliminarily, the Court is bound by the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Van Patten. To the extent Reyes may serve as persuasive authority, the Court finds it cannot be… Read More

In Self-Forbes v. Advanced Call Center Technologies, LLC, Case No. 16-15804, 2018 WL 5414613 (9th Cir. October 29, 2018), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in an unpublished decision reversed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to a TCPA defendant on the basis that the Plaintiff testified that she orally revoked consent to be called. We have… Read More

In Sharp v. Ally Financial, Inc., 2018 WL 4300018, at *18 (W.D.N.Y., 2018), Judge Wolford found that a TCPA claim survived the Plaintiff's death. Accordingly, the Court declines to follow the rationale and the conclusion set forth in Hannabury to the extent discussed above, and holds that a private claim brought pursuant to § 227(b)(3) and § 227(c)(5) of the… Read More

In Rodriguez v. Premier Bankcard, LLC, Case No. 3:16CV2541, 2018 WL 4184742 (N.D. Ohio. August 31, 2018),  Judge Carr framed 3 questions on summary judgment. First, Premier claims that because Hodge is the subscriber to the 70 number–that is, the consumer assigned to the number, and the individual billed for the call–he “was entitled to grant prior express consent for… Read More

1 2 3 8