U.S. Supreme Court Balks on Judicial Deference to FCC in TCPA Case, While Concurrence Led by Justice Kavanaugh Looks to Swing

TCPA litigators have been closely monitoring the U.S. Supreme Court's docket waiting for a ruling in the PDR Network case. At stake is what kind of judicial deference should be given to the FCC's interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Specifically, the Court was set to decide whether the Hobbs Act required the District Court to accept the FCC's legal interpretation of the TCPA. Numerous decisions at both the District Court and Circuit levels have held that trial courts have no discretion to review an FCC order interpreting the TCPA, meaning that courts must provide these orders complete deference. More ›

The Third Circuit Takes a More Expansive Approach to What Constitutes a Debt Collector under the FDCPA

On February 22, 2019, the Third Circuit in Barbato v. Greystone Alliance, LLC, issued a decision that expands the scope of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act's (FDCPA) definition of the term "debt collector" to any entity that acquires debt for the purpose of collection, but outsources the actual debt collection activity. More ›

Illinois Supreme Court Issues Ruling On What "Aggrieved" Means Under The Biometric Information Privacy Act

The Illinois Supreme Court in Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, et al. just held that under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) "an individual need not allege some actual injury or adverse effect, beyond violation of his or her rights under the Act, in order to qualify as an 'aggrieved' person and be entitled to seek liquidated damages and injunctive relief."

Rosenbach claimed Six Flags violated BIPA when it scanned her son's thumbprint for his season pass without written consent. The Illinois Appellate Court held that a plaintiff must demonstrate more than a technical violation of BIPA in order to state a claim. There have been conflicting decisions about whether actual harm is required since "person aggrieved" is not defined in the statute. More ›

Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act Case Has Significant Impact On Consumer Class Actions

On November 20, 2018, the Illinois Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) in Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, et al. BIPA governs how entities may collect, use, and retain biometric data, such as fingerprints and retinal scans. Specifically, the Illinois Supreme Court will rule on whether a plaintiff is an "aggrieved party" to state a claim under BIPA without suffering any actual injury. If the Supreme Court rules the way that they indicated at oral argument, then BIPA will become a large consumer issue. More ›

Seventh Circuit Rules in Favor of a Debt Collector Regarding Steps to be taken in Compliance with the FDCPA and FCRA when a Debtor Disputes a Debt

Hinshaw obtained a significant ruling in the Seventh Circuit in Walton, which involved claims under both the FDCPA and the FCRA. The Defendant sent Deborah Walton a dunning letter, which stated she owed delinquent debt on an AT&T account. But the letter listed an invalid account number—the first three digits of the account number were transposed with the middle three digits. Walton called Defendant to dispute that the debt belonged to her, she acknowledged that her name and address were correct, but falsely denied that the last four digits of her social security number matched those given by the representative. Walton also sent a letter to Defendant asserting that she did "not own [sic] AT&T any money under the account number listed above." Defendant checked the information it had received from AT&T and sent Walton a letter reporting that, based on a records review, it had verified Walton's name, address, social security number, and the amount of the debt. Defendant also reported Walton's debt as disputed with two credit reporting agencies. Walton then disputed the debt to the credit reporting agencies, which triggered an ACDV[1] report to Defendant about Walton's dispute. The notice simply stated that the debt did not belong to her. More ›