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.34: Vicarious Liability

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 Harrington v. Roundpoint Mortgage Servicing Corporation, 2016 WL 659331, at *2-4 (M.D.Fla., 2016), the District Court denied a creditor's motion to dismiss a TCPA action, disagreeing with the argument that the TCPA prohibits the imposition of vicarious liability. According to Plaintiff, RoundPoint placed nonemergency calls to his cell phone numbers using an automated dialer or a prerecorded voice without… Read More

In Selou v. Integrity Solution Services Inc., 2016 WL 612756, at *4-6 (E.D.Mich., 2016), Judge Parker found that LiveVox was not vicariously liable for the TCPA violations perpetrated by entities to whom it sold its technology. Plaintiff appears to be alternatively arguing in her response brief that LiveVox can be held vicariously liable for the alleged TCPA violations. (See ECF… Read More

In Melito v. American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., 2015 WL 7736547, at *4-5 (S.D.N.Y., 2015), Judge Caproni dismissed a TCPA class action against Experian for unsolicited texts sent by American Eagle in connection with a marketing campaign.  First, the Court found no direct liability under the TCPA. The plain language of section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) imposes liability upon persons that “make” a telephone call… Read More

In Jones v. All American Auto Protection, Inc., et. al., 2015 WL 7566685, at *2-3 (D.Nev. 2015), Judge Hicks found a TCPA defendant not vicariously liable under the TCPA. Plaintiffs argue that even though Royal did not physically place the calls itself, Royal is still vicariously liable under the TCPA because AAAP placed the calls on Royal's behalf. The FCC has… Read More

In Ghawi v. Law Offices Howard Lee Schiff, P.C., 2015 WL 6958010, at *3-5 (D.Conn., 2015), Judge Arterton denied summary judgment to a TCPA defendant, rejecting the argument that the calls were not to a cellular telephone so long as the debtor told the caller that the calls were routed to a a cell phone. All Defendants argue that Mr. Ghawi's… Read More

In Keating v. Peterson's Nelnet, LLC, 2015 WL 4430355 (6th Cir. 2015), the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor a TCPA defendant on whose behalf unauthorized text messages were sent.  First, the Sixth Circuit found that texts were "calls" under the TCPA. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendants contest the inclusion of text messages… Read More

In Miller v. Merchants Credit Adjusters, Inc., 2015 WL 4205159 (D.Neb.,2015), Judge Bataillon allowed a TCPA Plaintiff to amend his complaint to add the principals upon whose behalf a debt was being collected because, as the Court explained, the TCPA permits respondeat superior theories. “While section 227(b) does not contain a provision that specifically mandates or prohibits vicarious liability, we… Read More

In Murray v. Choice Energy, LLC, 2015 WL 4204398 (S.D.Ohio,2015), Judge Black found no direct or vicarious liability for an energy company on whose behalf telemarking calls were allegedly improperly made to the TCPA Plaintiffs. Attached to the crossclaim complaint are a Services Agreement and Turnkey Telemarketing Sales Outsourcing Agreement (“Outsourcing Agreement”) entered into between Choice Energy and Premiere. (Id… Read More

In Hartley-Culp v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2014 WL 5088230 (M.D.Pa. 2014), Judge Munley held that the TCPA imposed vicarious liability on Fannie Mae for the alleged TCPA violations of its servicer. The facts were as follows: Beginning on August 29, 2013, plaintiff received at least twenty-six (26) phone calls from Defendant Resolve Solution Services Corporation (hereinafter… Read More

In Gomez v. Campbell–Ewald Co., --- F.3d ----, 2014 WL 4654478 (9th Cir. 2014), the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment in favor of a TCPA defendant marketing company. The message was the result of collaboration between the Navy and the Campbell–Ewald Company,FN1 a marketing consultant hired by the Navy to develop and execute a… Read More

1 2 3 4