Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Invasion of Privacy

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 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

In Romero v. Department Stores National Bank, 2018 WL 1079728, at *1 (C.A.9 (Cal.), 2018), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held in an unpublished decision that a TCPA plaintiff had Spokeo standing. The district court erred in concluding that Romero lacked standing under Article III to bring a TCPA claim. The district court did not have the benefit of Van… Read More

In Schwartz-Earp v. Advanced Call Center Technologies, LLC, 2016 WL 899149, at *1-2 (N.D.Cal., 2016), Magistrate Judge James denied summary judgment to a debt collector under the FDCPA, but granted summary judgment against the Plaintiff on her TCPA/common law claims. The facts were as follows: On or about February 3, 2014, Plaintiff applied in-store for a JCPenney-branded credit card, issued… Read More

In Varnado v. Midland Funding LLC, --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2014 WL 1994622 (N.D.Cal. 2014), Judge Ryu found that the Plaintiff stated no claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress against a debt collector nor any claim for punitive damages.  Judge Ryu found, however, that a claim for intrustion on seclusion was stated.  Judge Ryu found that debt collectors do not… Read More

In Rector v. WFDS, here, Judge Fischer granted summary judgment on Plaintiff's TCPA, FDCPA, and Intrusion on Seclusion claims. Plaintiff, a third party who was listed as credit reference on customer's credit application, claimed that Wells Fargo made dialer calls to his cell phone.  Wells Fargo made a handful of calls to Plaintiff to question the whereabouts of the customer… Read More

In Masuda v. Citibank, N.A., --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2014 WL 1759580 (N.D.Cal. 2014), Judge Hamilton allowed a Rosenthal Act and Intrusion on Seclusion claim to proceed by a third party who was not the debtor (but was alleged to be). Citibank contends that the first cause of action fails to state a claim because Masuda has not alleged facts showing… Read More

In Kleiman v. Equable Ascent, 2013 WL 49754 (C.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Snyder allowed an FDCPA-telephonic harassment claim to proceed as adequately pleaded. Defendant's argument that plaintiff must allege the exact time debt collection phone calls occurred and the names of the individuals who made the calls appears to rest on the mistaken assumption that the heightened pleading standards of Federal Rule… Read More

In Carson v. Bank of America, N.A., 2012 WL 5041359 (E.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Englund found that FCRA pre-empted Plaintiff’s tort claims for false light and invasion of privacy. Plaintiffs' seventh claim is for false light invasion of privacy. Plaintiffs allege, specifically, that Defendant “reported Plaintiffs late on their mortgage payments, when they were not in fact late, and initiating foreclosure… Read More

In McEndree v. Rash Curtis & Associates, 2012 WL 1640465 (E.D.Cal. 2012), Judge England found that liability cascaded down through the Rosenthal Act and FDCPA when a debt collector communicated about the debt with a girlfriend whom the debt collector mistakenly believed was the debtor's spouse.  Judge England found liability for impermissibly violating the prohibition against discussing more than location information… Read More

In Smith v. Capital One Financial Corp.  2012 WL 1669347 (N.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Hamilton held that an FDCPA claim and common law invasion of privacy claim would not lie against a credit card company collecting its own obligations. However, a company that extends a consumer credit line (e.g., a credit card company) is in the business of extending credit, not the… Read More

In Stuart v. AR Resources, Inc., 2011 WL 904167 (E.D.Pa. 2011), Judge Buckwalter allowed a Plaintiff's TCPA-FDCPA claim to proceed, explaining: Plaintiff next asserts that Defendants have violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq., by calling her cellular telephone with automated recordings. (Compl.¶¶ 15, 36.) Under the TCPA, it is unlawful:  (A) to make any call… Read More

In Bailey v. Household Finance Corp. of California, 2010 WL 4569950 (S.D.Cal. 2010), Judge Hayes found that a Plaintiff stated a tort claim arising from defendant’s recording of their collection communications, explaining:   Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated California's Invasion of Privacy Act, California Penal Code § 630, et seq. by using “a software system that enables [Defendants] to secretly… Read More

In Marseglia v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2010 WL 4595549 (S.D.Cal. 2010), Judge Houston put to rest questions about the common law torts of invasion of privacy and “tort-in-se”, as well as the question regarding whether the Rosenthal Act provides multiple penalties for debt collection torts.    As to the invasion of privacy claim deriving from purportedly… Read More

In Begg v. Dell Financial Services, L.L.C., 2010 WL 3909914 (S.D.Cal. 2010), Judge Benitez defined the “intrusion on seclusion” tort in the FDCPA context, finding that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim.   “To prove actionable intrusion, the plaintiff must show the defendant penetrated some zone of physical or sensory privacy surrounding, or obtained unwanted access to data about, the… Read More