Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

CEB Prac. Guide § 2B.27: Established Business Rel'n

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 Farrish v. Navy Federal Credit Union, 2017 WL 4418416, at *2–3 (D.Md., 2017), Judge Chasanow dismissed a TCPA claim based on debt collection calls placed by a credit munition because such calls are exempt from the TCPA. The TCPA prohibits certain problematic telephone solicitation practices. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b). In enacting the TCPA, Congress allowed the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”)… 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

In Lynn v. Monarch Recovery Management, Inc.--- Fed.Appx. ----, 2014 WL 4922451 (4th Cir. 2014), the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals found that a debt collector could not rely on the TCPA's land-line/EBR exemption where the debtor was charged for the call. The TCPA specifically prohibits “mak[ing] any call ... using any [ATDS] or an artificial or prerecorded voice ... to any… Read More

In Abdullah v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, Inc., 2014 WL 4851760 (M.D.Ga. 2014), Judge Royal found that auto-dialed loan servicing calls to a residential land-line were not actionable under the TCPA. Plaintiff alleges Ocwen violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B) of the TCPA by using an automated telephone dialing system to call her telephone line and leave recorded messages without permission. Ocwen's telephone calls,… Read More

In Lee v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., 2013 WL 6561783 (W.D.Va. 2013), Judge Moon found a autodialed debt collection calls to a land-line barred by an existing business relationship. Finally, Plaintiff claims Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227 of TCPA. Section 227(b)(1)(B) of the TCPA prohibits using an automated telephone dialing system (“ATDS”) to initiate any telephone call to any… Read More

In Hoover v. Monarch Recovery Management, Inc., 2012 WL 3638680 (E.D.Pa. 2012), Judge Gardner allowed a telephonic harassment case to proceed, but dismissed an TCPA “unintended recipient” case based on Meadows as to land-line calls, deferring to the FCC on the subject.  On the harassment case, Judge Gardner found that Plaintiff stated a claim for calls, on average, ten times per… Read More

  In Shupe v. JPMorgan Chase Bank of Arizona, 2012 WL 1344786 (D.Ariz. 2012), Judge Collins held that plaintiffs stated a claim under the TCPA.Judge Collins found that the consumers revoked the “Established Business Relationship” under the TCPA which otherwise permitted auto-dialed calls to their residential telephone number. The FCC has unequivocally stated that calls made solely for the purpose… Read More

The FCC today issued its Final Telemarketing Sales Rule today.  As to debt collection calls, the FCC noted the distinction between land-lines and cellular telephones, as well as affirming that debt collectors can obtain either oral or written consent to call consumers on their cellular telephones using an autodialer: Moreover, while we revise our consent rules to require prior written consent… Read More

In Zehala v. American Exp., 2011 WL 4484297 (S.D.Ohio 2011), Judge Watson distinguished between ADAD calls to land lines versus cellular telephones, finding that Plaintiff failed to state a claim as to the former but had properly pleaded a claim as to the latter.    As to land lines, Judge Watson found no claim because an established business relationship existed:… Read More

1 2