Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Firm Profile

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.

Google’s Motion for Summary Judgment, on Claims Related to Its Collection of Data During Private Browsing Sessions, is Denied

by Genevieve R. Walser-Jolly |

In Brown v. Google LLC, No. 4:20-CV-3664-YGR, 2023 WL 5029899, (N.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2023), United States District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers details what constitutes standing to defeat a motion for summary judgment on breach of contract and various privacy violation claims: “To have Article III standing to sue in federal court, plaintiffs must demonstrate, among other things, that… Read More

Court of Appeal (Cal.) Affirms Judgment Against Call Center Worker Whose Employer Recorded Workers’ Personal Calls with Her Daughter

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Rojas v. HSBC Card Servs. Inc., No. D077931, 2023 WL 4635056, at *1–2 (Cal. Ct. App. July 20, 2023), the Court of Appeal waded into an employer's recording of all calls of its employees whose job it is to communicate with the employers' customers. Rojas received hundreds of personal calls from her daughter Alejandra, an employee at an HSBC… Read More

CIPA Motion to Dismiss Denied in Chat-Feature Case

by Genevieve R. Walser-Jolly |

On February 3, 2023, Judge Sykes of the Central District of California denied Goodyear's motion to transfer venue and its motion to dismiss Plaintiff's CIPA claim.  Byars v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., No. 522CV01358SSSKKX, 2023 WL 1788553 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2023). On the motion to transfer venue, the Court held: Where the internet contract falls into the browsewrap… Read More

9th Cir. Says California’s Call Recording Statute Applies to Website that Recorded Visitors

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Javier v. Assurance IQ, LLC, No. 21-16351, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 14951, at *3 (9th Cir. May 31, 2022), the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held that "[t]hough written in terms of wiretapping, Section 631(a) applies to Internet communications."   The facts and procedure below were as follows: Assurance is an insurance platform that owns and operates Nationalfamily.com. On this… Read More

California Supreme Court Finds Penal Code section 632.7 Requires Two-Party Consent

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Smith v. Loanme, Inc., No. S260391, 2021 Cal. LEXIS 2248, at *2-3 (Apr. 1, 2021), the California Supreme Court found that Penal Code 632.7 requires two-party consent.  The summary is below: Under Penal Code section 632.7, subdivision (a) (hereinafter section 632.7(a)), it is a crime when a person “without the consent of all parties to a communication, intercepts or… Read More

District Court (Cal.) Finds Some TCPA Calls Barred by the SofL, But Still Relevant to Willfulness; Allows Call Recording Claim to Proceed

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Ewing v. Freedom Forever Ltd. Liab. Co., No. 20-cv-880-JLS (AHG), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53561 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2021), Judge Sammartino dismissed part of a TCPA claim, but let the balance proceed.   Judge Sammartino held that some of the calls were barred by the statute of limitations, but still remained relevant. Defendants argue that "most of Plaintiff's… Read More

Court of Appeal (Cal.) Says Call Recording Statute Applies Only to Third Party “Eavesdropping”, Not to Parties to the Call

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Smith v. LoanMe, Inc., No. E069752, 2019 Cal. App. LEXIS 1282, at *2-4 (Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2019), the California Court of Appeal addressed the scope of a cause of action under Penal Code 632.7.  The facts were as follows: LoanMe is in the business of providing personal and small business loans. Smith's wife is the borrower on a… Read More

Court of Appeal (Cal.) Affirms Denial of Class Certification of Call Recording Case under Pen. Code § 632 Because Individual Factual Questions Predominate

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Hataishi v. First American Home Buyers Protection Corporation, --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2014 WL 667381 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 2014), the Court of Appeal for the Second District affirmed the trial court’s denial of class certification in a call-recording case filed under Penal Code § 632. The facts were as follows: A customer placing an inbound call to First American is… Read More

9th Cir. Finds Plaintiff Does Not Adequately Plead Privacy Expectation under California’s Call-Recording Statute

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Faulkner v. ADT Sec. Services, Inc., --- F.3d ----, 2013 WL 174368 (9th Cir. 2013), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that Plaintiff failed to properly plead an expectation of privacy.   On March 4, 2010, John Faulkner contacted his security provider, ADT, by telephone to dispute a charge assessed by ADT. Faulkner was transferred to ADT's… Read More