TCPA

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 Barton v. Serve All Help All Inc., No. 3:21-cv-5338 RJB, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161487, at *8 (W.D. Wash. Sep. 7, 2022), Judge Bryan denied summary judgment all around, but also denied a TCPA defendant's jurisdictional motion. Defendant argues that the Plaintiff cannot show that he has been "injured in fact" because he has not shown that he has… Read More

In Pizarro v. Quinstreet, Inc., No. 22-cv-02803-MMC, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145556, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2022), Judge Chesney ordered a TCPA Class-action Plaintiff's case to arbitration. In her Complaint, Pizarro alleges QuinStreet is a "marketing company" that "sells consumer contact information to lenders" in exchange for referral fees. (See Compl. ¶ 4.) Specifically, Pizarro alleges, QuinStreet "harvests… Read More

In Brickman v. Meta (9th Cir. No. 21-16785),  the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit is poised to rule on efforts to evade the SCOTUS' ruling in Duguid.  According to the Respondent's Brief, the issue is framed as: This appeal involves an effort to evade the consequences of binding Supreme Court precedent that squarely forecloses Plaintiff’s claim. The Telephone Consumer Protection… Read More

In In re Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, Consumer Act Litig., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141028, at *30-34 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2022), Judge Houston stayed a TCPA case based on an ATDS issue currently pending before the 9th Circuit in Brinkman. Plaintiffs seek a stay of this action pending the resolution of Brickman v. Facebook, Inc., currently before the Ninth… Read More

In Weister v. Vantage Point AI, LLC, No. 8:21-cv-1250-SDM-AEP, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139642, at *2-5 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 3, 2022), Judge Merryday denied summary judgment to a ringless voicemail message provider whose telemarketing messages were challenged under the TCPA. The facts were as follows: The following facts are either undisputed or construed in Weister's favor. VantagePoint sells "financial, technical… Read More

In Moore v. Robinhood Fin. LLC, No. 2:21-cv-01571-BJR, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138392, at *2-5 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 3, 2022), Judge Rothstein allowed a CEMA claim to proceed against Robin Hood under its "Refer-a-Friend" program. The facts alleged are as follows: Robinhood is an online investments brokerage service firm that, through its free mobile application (the "Robinhood App") and website,… Read More

In Costa v. Dvinci Energy, Inc., Civil Action No. 21-11501-NMG, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130208, at *4-6 (D. Mass. July 22, 2022), Judge Gorton declined to strike a TCPA class action at the pleadings stage despite complaints that it is a "fail-safe" class. Dvinci contends that the proposed class is fail-safe—and thus must be struck—because it defines its membership in… Read More

In Soliman v. Subway Franchisee Advert. Fund Tr., Ltd., No. 3:19-cv-592 (JAM), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126468, at *6-8 (D. Conn. July 18, 2022), Judge Meyer disposed of the argument that Subway's text message software was an ATDS. And under Soliman's reading, the Act would probably cover much more than mass dialing. As she admits, sequential number generation is "an… Read More

In Mina v. Red Robin Int'l, Inc., Civil Action No. 20-cv-00612-RM-NYW, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104423, at *10-16 (D. Colo. June 10, 2022), Judge Wang dismissed a TCPA case at the pleadings stage for absence of an ATDS under Duguid. [Defendant] maintains that Duguid does not foreclose a conclusion that the text messaging program used by Defendants constitutes an autodialer under… Read More

In Barnett v. First Nat'l Bank of Omaha, Civil Action No. 3:20-cv-337-CHB, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104029, at *5-8 (W.D. Ky. June 10, 2022), Judge Boom denied a motion to reconsider a finding that the TCPA defendant's LiveVox system was not an ATDS. In his Motion, Barnett claims that the Court failed to consider FNBO's use of the TWX system in… Read More

In Williamson v. Irving K Motor Co. LLC, Civil Action No. 3:21-CV-1599-L-BH, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101052, at *15-18 (N.D. Tex. June 7, 2022), Judge Ramirez denied a motion to dismiss a TCPA claim brought on the argument that SCOTUS' AAPC rendered the TCPA unenforceable from 2015 to 2020. A small number of district courts, including the Eastern Districts of Texas… Read More

In Demesa v. Treasure Island, LLC, No. 2:18-cv-02007-JAD-NJK, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98511, at *8-9 (D. Nev. June 1, 2022), Judge Dorsey rejected a TCPA Plaintiff's attempted end-around Duguid, where the Plaintiff argued that a standard text message fell within section 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B)'s prohibition against using "artificial or prerecorded voice" without consent. DeMesa's alternative theory of liability fares no better.… Read More

In Berman v. Freedom Fin. Network, LLC, No. 20-16900, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 9083, at *12-14 (9th Cir. Apr. 5, 2022), the 9th Circuit addressed the enforceability of an arbitration agreement set forth on a website that allowed the consumer to click-through the operator's various policies and the arbitration.  The Court of Appeals stated the rule as follows: The most… Read More

In Eggleston v. Reward Zone USA LLC, No. 2:20-cv-01027-SVW-KS, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20928, at *11-14 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2022), Judge Wilson dismissed a TCPA "pre-recorded voice" case premised on the theory that the standard text messages that she received did not constitute a "voice" under the TCPA. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant's text messages violated § 227(b) because… Read More

A federal district court in Arizona has certified a nationwide “non customer” class under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (“TCPA”) against Citibank, N.A. TCPA class actions carry enormous potential liability, as the statute provides for recovery of $500 to $1,500 per call for unconsented autodialed or prerecorded calls to cellular telephones. The case is Head v.… Read More

In Pascal v. Concentra, Inc., No. 19-cv-02559-JCS, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 239583, at *23-30 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2021), Judge Spero granted summary judgment to a TCPA defendant on the basis that no ATDS was used. Based on the undisputed facts relating to Textedly's functionality, Plaintiff does not dispute that the text messages at issue in this case were not… Read More

In Raphael Aus. v. Alorica, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-05019-ODW (PVCx), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 240677, at *5-6 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2021), Judge Wright dismissed a TCPA claim but allowed a Rosenthal Act claim to proceed.  As to the TCPA claim, Judge Wright held: The parties dispute whether alleging that a system calls a prepopulated list of customers or clients is… Read More

In Brown v. DirecTV, LLC, No. CV 13-1170 DMG (Ex), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231014, at *15-23 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2021), Judge Gee discussed how wrong number codes might impact class certification. But that does not mean that Plaintiffs' procedure is otherwise improper—if done in the proper sequence. The Class is defined to include only non-customers, and DirecTV has… Read More

1 2 3 48