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.

Identity Theft

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 Blackmon v. Ad Astra Recovery Servs., Case No.: 20-CV-800-CAB-JLB, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75878 (S.D. Cal. April 20, 2021), Judge Bencivengo granted summary judgment to a debt collector who was alleged to have committed errors in connection with handling a purported claim of identity theft.   After the debtor failed to submit an affidavit of theft or police report but then… Read More

In Randall v. Dish Network, LLC, 2018 WL 3235543, at *3 (E.D.N.Y., 2018), Judge Spatt dismissed an FCRA-permissible purpose case premised on identity theft. The Plaintiff has not successfully alleged that Dish negligently violated § 1681q by allowing an identity thief to open an account and perform a consumer credit check on the Plaintiff’s account. “A person cannot obtain information… Read More

In Petrou v. Navient Corporation, 2018 WL 3020160 (S.D.Cal., 2018), the District Court found that a mere claim of identity theft did not render the reporting of an account inaccurate within the context of the substantive laws governing the collection of student loans. Plaintiff alleges that his daughter, Selaina A. Petrou, in order to fund her undergraduate education, fraudulently obtained two… Read More

In Seungtae Kim v. BMW Financial Services NA, LLC, 2015 WL 6680911, at *2 (C.D.Cal., 2015), Judge O'Connell denied a new trial to an automobile finance company, against whom a $430,000 jury verdict was assessed.  The facts were as follows: On August 28, 2015, the jury rendered its unanimous verdict, finding in Plaintiff's favor on two of his three claims. (Judgment… Read More

In Galper v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2015 WL 5711882, at *5-8 (C.A.2 (N.Y.),2015), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that New York's ID Theft Laws were not preempted by FCRA with respect to furnisher misconduct that was not regulated by 15 USC 1681(s)-2 of FCRA. Here, the language of the provision expresses Congress's intent to preempt… Read More

In Drew v. Equifax Information Services, LLC --- F.3d ----, 2012 WL 3186110 (9th Cir. 2012), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a furnisher could have violated its statutory duty under FCRA to block all reporting following its investigation of the consumer's identity theft claim.  A consumer had reported to a credit bureau that his identity had… Read More

Yesterday, the FTC prevailed against the National Automobile Dealers' Association's challenge to the FTC's Risk Based Pricing Rules under FACTA.  The FTC's Motion to Dismiss was granted and the NADA's Summary Judgment Motion was denied.  (National Auto. Dealers Ass'n v. F.T.C., --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2012 WL 1854088 (D.D.C. 2012) Judge Huvelle summarized the case as follows: The National Automobile Dealers… Read More

In Reilly v. Ceridian Corp., --- F.3d ----, 2011 WL 6144191 (3rd Cir. 2011), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that fear of identity theft is not a compensable loss conferring Article III standing litigants in federal court.  The case arose from the following facts.  Ceridian is a payroll processing firm.  To process its commercial business customers'… Read More

The Red Flag Program Clarification Act of 2010 narrows the definition of the term “creditor” to include only entities that that use consumer reports, furnish information to consumer reporting agencies, or to others who extend credit.  More specifically, it amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act, with respect to federal agency (red flag) guidelines regarding identity theft and the users of consumer… Read More

1 2