Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

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 Comprehensive Health Care Systems of Palm Beaches, Inc. v. Vitaminerals VM/Orthopedics, Ltd., 2017 WL 27263, at *4–6 (N.D.Ohio, 2017), Judge Burke dismissed a TCPA blast-fax against a defendant on whose behalf the fax allegedly was sent. Hygenic submits that these allegations are insufficient to state a claim that Hygenic is liable under the TCPA because the Amended Complaint generically lumps… Read More

In Vinny's Landscaping, Inc. v. United Auto Credit Corporation, 2016 WL 4801276, at *3 (E.D.Mich., 2016), Judge Cox allowed a TCPA-Junk Fax case past the pleading stage against an automobile finance company. The Sixth Circuit first addressed the issue of whether or not a fax constitutes an advertisement under the TCPA in 2015. See Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC v. Medco… Read More

In Mora v. Zeta Interactive Corp., 2016 WL 3477222, at *2-3 (E.D.Cal., 2016), Judge Drozd denied a motion to dismiss filed by a TCPA blast-fax's CEO who was named in a TCPA case against his company. In the instant case, defendants argue that the allegations specifically leveled against defendant Steinberg lack details of his direct participation in any wrongdoing and… Read More

In Siding and Insulation Co. v. Alco Vending, Inc., 2016 WL 2620507, at *4-5 (C.A.6 (Ohio),2016), the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the FCC's 2006 amended definition of "sender" did not apply retroactively to faxes sent in 2005.  More importantly, however, the Court of Appeals found that common law agency principles did not govern the concept… Read More

In Bridgeview Health Care Center, Ltd. v. Clark, 2016 WL 1085233, at *2-3 (7th Cir. 2016), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's rejection of agency liability under the TCPA, where the authority to the agent was limited. In determining what theory should govern Clark's liability, the trial court correctly rejected strict liability by recognizing that… Read More

In Urban Elevator Service, Inc. v. Stryker Lubricant Distributors, Inc., 2015 WL 6736676, at *1-2 (N.D.Ill., 2015), Judge Shah found granted a Motion to Dismiss a TCPA blast-fax class action against one defendant who claimed that it was not responsible for the sending of the fax at issue. In response, plaintiff argues that—by pleading “Defendants” sent the fax—it did allege Sinopec USA… Read More

In Imhoff Investment, L.L.C. v. Alfoccino, Inc., 2015 WL 4079438,(6th Cir. 2015), the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit found Article III standing for a TCPA class plaintiff, and imposed direct, rather than vicarious, liability on a company on whose behalf an unsolicited fax was sent.  The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals summarized its holding as follows: Plaintiff Avio, Inc. alleges… Read More