District Court Rules the Plaintiff Cannot Revoke Consent Through Strategies Such as the Use of a Fake British Accent
The plaintiff in Johnson v. Capital One Servs., No. 18-cv-62058, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159633 (S.D. Fla. Sept.
The plaintiff in Johnson v. Capital One Servs., No. 18-cv-62058, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159633 (S.D. Fla. Sept.
A year ago, the landmark Ninth Circuit decision in Marks v. Crunch San Diego, LLC broadened the definition of what constitutes an Automatic Telephone Dialing System (ATDS) under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Finding the statutory definition to be vague, the court disregarded the precedent of Dominguez v. Yahoo
In December 2018, the FCC announced a plan to create a reassigned number database. Callers would be able to scrub their number lists against this database in order to remove any numbers that have been reassigned to new users, thus decreasing the possibility of incurring Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) violations by calling these new users.
As one of their first acts upon returning from the August recess, the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee passed the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal (FAIR) Act. This bill could have consequences for Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) lawsuits in the unlikely event that it becomes enacted into law.
A California-based debt collector received an astoundingly high amount of damages in a verdict rendered this week. The jury in McMillion v. Rash Curtis & Associates, 4:16-cv-03396 (N.D. Cal.) hit the defendant with a $267 million verdict for Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) violations on 534,000 calls.
The FTC announced that it had reached a $30 million settlement to resolve charges against Career Education Corp (CEC)—an Illinois-based, for-profit education provider—resulting from unlawful tactics used by third-party lead generators.