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.

Usually, when the Court starts out this way, it doesn’t end well for the defendant: After Navient Solutions, LLC and its affiliate, Student Assistance Corporation ("SAC"), called Joel Lucoff's cell phone almost 2,000 times concerning his unpaid student loan, Lucoff sued Navient and SAC alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. § 227. The… Read More

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

In Few v. Receivables Performance Management,  2018 WL 3772863, at *2–3 (N.D.Ala., 2018), Judge Owen Bowdre granted summary judgment to a debt collector based on Reyes. In this case, Ms. Few contends that, although she may have initially provided DISH— and, by extension, Receivables, which acted as DISH’s agent for the purpose of debt collection—with consent to call the 0268… Read More

In Harris v. Navient Solutions, LLC (f/k/a Sallie Mae), 2018 WL 3748155, at *2–3 (D.Conn. 2018), Judge Chatigny granted summary judgment to a TCPA defendant under Reyes.  The Second Circuit has held that “the TCPA does not permit a party who agrees to be contacted as part of a bargained-for exchange to unilaterally revoke that consent.” See Reyes v. Lincoln… Read More

In McMillion v. Rash Curtis & Associates, Case No. 16-cv-03396-YGR, 2018 WL 3023449 (N.D. Cal. Jun3 18, 2018), Judge Gonzales-Rogers declined to revisit her ruling on summary judgment (previously reported on here https://www.severson.com/consumer-finance/district-court-cal-says-defendant-used-atdss-class-period-addresses-whether-calls-many-fdcpa-rosenthal-act-says-medical-debt-consumer-credit-transaction-becau/  or to stay the case pending the outcome of the 9th Circuit’s Marks ruling.  First, the District Court declined to reconsider her ruling on summary judgment. Rash Curtis argues that because… Read More

In Walintukan v. SBE Entertainment Group., LLC., 2018 WL 2357763, at *3 (N.D.Cal., 2018), Judge Tigar denied a TCPA defendant's summary judgment motion. Defendants argue that “the text messages involved in this case fall squarely within [the] scope of consent test articulated by the Court of Appeals in Van Patten — both from a temporal and a subject matter standpoint.”… Read More

In Jara v. GC Services Ltd., Partnership, et. al. 2018 WL 2276635 (C.D.Cal.), 3 (C.D.Cal., 2018), Judge Wright found a triable issue of fact as to whether a debtor’s revocation of TCPA consent on one account was sufficient to revoke consent on all accounts held by the debt collector. Mrs. Jara was the sole authorized user on her JC Penny,… Read More

In Weed v. SunTrust Bank, 2018 WL 2100590 (N.D.Ga.), 3 (N.D.Ga., 2018), Judge Duffy declined to rule on a caller’s Reyes defense to an oral revocation claim under the TCPA because the defense is an affirmative defense that the Court declined to rule on at the pleadings stage. SunTrust argues that Weed consented in the Sale Contract to the calls… Read More

In Zondlo v. Allied Interstate, LLC., 2018 WL 827590, at *6 (M.D.Pa., 2018), Judge Munley estopped a debt collector from re-litigating whether the calling system it used was an ATDS. Allied does not dispute that it was fully represented during Morse, and, as previously mentioned, has even agreed to use the deposition testimony from Morse in the instant case, as… Read More

1 2 3 4