A recent ruling by the Northern District of Illinois Court in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action adds to a growing body of case law that holds that avatar technology should be considered a “precorded voice” for the purposes of telemarketing regulations.
The Southern District of New York Court rendered a costly judgment against the defendant in Jiminez v. Credit One Bank, N.A., No. 17 CV 2844-LTS-JLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203613 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2019): $197,000 for 380 calls that violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
Class members in a recent Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action settlement—Charvat v. Valente, No. 12-cv-05746, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187225 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 28, 2019)—each received approximately 2.5% of the payout that they were originally promised.
An Arizona District Court granted a motion to have a recent Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action transferred to another district court in a case that emphasizes the important differences between different circuits with regards to TCPA case law and Automatic Telephone Dialing System (ATDS) definitions.
A recent District Court ruling in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) case—Savett v. Anthem, Inc., CASE NO. 1:18-CV-274, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190955 (N.D. Oh. Nov. 4, 2019)—threads a very specific needle and provides an interesting clarification regarding what constitutes a telemarketing robocall to a landline.
A California District Court handed down a ruling in a debt collection-related Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) case that potentially sets a clarifying precent on how revocation of consent applies to debtors with multiple accounts.
A California district court issued a ruling in favor of the defendant in an unusual Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action case involving a company that operates a mobile app designed to deliver cannabis products.
The office of Curtis T. Hill, Attorney General for the state of Indiana, has issued an opinion that clarifies certain aspects of new telemarketing regulations passed by the state legislature. Most notably, the AG sets forth some exemptions to the telemarketing registration requirements run that legislation.
A new decision by the Eastern District of California made use of the Ninth Circuit’s broad definition of what constitutes an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) from last year’s Marks v. Crunch San Diego decision.