<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
			<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='https://www.burr.com/consumer-finance-litigation/rss.xsl' ?>
			<rss version='2.0' xmlns:content='http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/'
					xmlns:atom='http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom'
					xmlns:dc='http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/'>
				<channel>
					<title>Consumer Finance Litigation Blog | Burr &amp; Forman LLP</title>
					<link>https://www.burr.com/consumer-finance-litigation/2018/</link>
					<atom:link href='https://www.burr.com/consumer-finance-litigation/2018/?rss' rel='self' type='application/rss+xml' />
					<description><![CDATA[The latest updates to Consumer Finance Litigation Blog.]]></description>
					<lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2026 02:53:56 -0400</lastBuildDate>
					
				<item>
				<title>District Court in Alabama Dismisses Putative Class Action Alleging
Settlement Letter Violated the FDCPA</title>
				<link>https://www.burr.com/consumer-finance-litigation/district-court-in-alabama-dismisses-putative-class-action-alleging-settlement-letter-violated-the-fdcpa</link>
<dc:creator>Alan D. Leeth</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink='false'>district-court-in-alabama-dismisses-putative-class-action-alleging-settlement-letter-violated-the-fdcpa</guid>

					<pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2018 09:00:01 -0500</pubDate>
					<description><![CDATA[<p>In <em>Swann v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC</em>, No. 4:18-CV-1000-VEH, 2018 WL 6198997 (N.D. Ala. Nov. 28, 2018), the Northern District of Alabama dismissed a putative class action case alleging a letter seeking to collect a time-barred debt violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").</p> <p>The plaintiff, Susan Swann ("Plaintiff"), alleged that defendants Dynamic Recovery Services, LLC ("DRS") and Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC ("JCS") violated &sect; 1692e and &sect;1692f of the FDCPA. See generally id. Section 1692e prohibits debt collectors from "'us[ing] any false deceptive&nbsp;... </p>]]></description>
</item>

				<item>
				<title>Eleventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal of FDCPA Letter Case, Says "Least
Sophisticated Consumer" Does Not Receive Correspondence "In a Vacuum"</title>
				<link>https://www.burr.com/consumer-finance-litigation/eleventh-circuit-affirms-dismissal-of-fdcpa-letter-case-says-least-sophisticated-consumer-does-not-receive-correspondence-in-a-vacuum</link>
<dc:creator>Alan D. Leeth, Ryan J. Hebson</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink='false'>eleventh-circuit-affirms-dismissal-of-fdcpa-letter-case-says-least-sophisticated-consumer-does-not-receive-correspondence-in-a-vacuum</guid>

					<pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2018 09:00:02 -0500</pubDate>
					<description><![CDATA[<p>For many of the claims asserted under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. &sect;&sect; 1692-1692p (the "FDCPA"), courts are required to apply the "least sophisticated consumer" standard in evaluating the claim, an "objective" test that assesses the alleged violation from the perspective of the hypothetical "least sophisticated consumer." <em>See Landeros v. Pinnacle Recovery, Inc.</em>, 692 F. App'x 608, 612-13 (11th Cir. 2017); <em>see also Leonard v. Zwicker &amp; Assocs., P.C.</em>, 713 F. App'x 879, 881-82 (11th Cir. 2017). But as the Eleventh Circuit again made clear earlier this month in <em>Lait&nbsp;... </em></p>]]></description>
</item>

				<item>
				<title>District Court of Minnesota Finds Calls to a Reassigned Number Did Not
Violate the TCPA</title>
				<link>https://www.burr.com/consumer-finance-litigation/district-court-of-minnesota-finds</link>
<dc:creator>Matthew T. Mitchell, Kristen Peters Watson</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink='false'>district-court-of-minnesota-finds</guid>

					<pubDate>Sat, 17 Nov 2018 09:00:03 -0500</pubDate>
					<description><![CDATA[<p>In <em>Roark v. Credit One Bank, N.A</em>., No. 16-173 (PAM/ECW), 2018 WL 5921652 (D. Minn. Nov. 13, 2018), the District Court of Minnesota found that calls to a reassigned phone number did not violate the TCPA because the caller's reliance on the prior owner's express consent was reasonable.</p> <p>The plaintiff, Stewart Roark ("Plaintiff"), alleged Credit One Bank, N.A. ("Credit One") violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by using an automatic dialer ("ATDS") to call his cell phone number and left a prerecorded voicemail on his phone without his consent. <em>See generally id.</em></p>]]></description>
</item>

				<item>
				<title>FCC Seeks Comment on ATDS Under the TCPA After Marks v. Crunch San Diego</title>
				<link>https://www.burr.com/consumer-finance-litigation/fcc-seeks-comment-on-atds-under-the-tcpa-after-marks-v-crunch-san-diego</link>
<dc:creator>Jacqueline  Simms-Petredis</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink='false'>fcc-seeks-comment-on-atds-under-the-tcpa-after-marks-v-crunch-san-diego</guid>

					<pubDate>Tue, 09 Oct 2018 09:00:04 -0400</pubDate>
					<description><![CDATA[<p>On October 3, 2018, the FCC issued a Public Notice to seek comment on what constitutes an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS) under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">[1]</a> in the wake of the Ninth Circuit's <em>Marks v. Crunch San Diego, LLC</em>, 14-56834, 2018 WL 4495553 (9th Cir. Sept. 20, 2018) decision last month. Under the TCPA, an ATDS is defined as equipment that has the capacity to "<strong>(A)</strong> to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and <strong>(B)</strong> to dial such numbers."<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">[2]</a> The FCC noted that the <em>Marks</em> court expanded this&nbsp;... </p>]]></description>
</item>

				<item>
				<title>Middle District of Florida Finds ACA Vacated the 2003, 2008, and 2015 FCC
Orders</title>
				<link>https://www.burr.com/consumer-finance-litigation/middle-district-of-florida-finds-aca-vacated-the-2003-2008-and-2015-fcc-orders</link>
<dc:creator>Frank  Springfield, Kristen Peters Watson</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink='false'>middle-district-of-florida-finds-aca-vacated-the-2003-2008-and-2015-fcc-orders</guid>

					<pubDate>Fri, 07 Sep 2018 09:00:05 -0400</pubDate>
					<description><![CDATA[<p>In <em>Gonzalez v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC</em>, No. 5:18-cv-340-Oc-30PRL, 2018 WL 4217065 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 5, 2018), the Middle District of Florida determined that the D.C. Circuit's opinion in <em>ACA International v. FCC</em>, 885 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. 2018) [hereinafter "<em>ACA</em>"], vacated the Federal Communications Commission's ("FCC") 2003, 2008, and 2015 Orders interpreting the definition of an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS").</p> <p>The plaintiff, Wilfredo Gonzalez ("Plaintiff"), alleged that Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC ("Ocwen") used an ATDS to place approximately 500 calls to his&nbsp;... </p>]]></description>
</item>

				<item>
				<title>Central District of California Finds ACA Set Aside All FCC Autodialer
Guidance</title>
				<link>https://www.burr.com/consumer-finance-litigation/central-district-of-california-finds-aca-set-aside-all-fcc-autodialer-guidance</link>
<dc:creator>Kristen Peters Watson, Frank  Springfield</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink='false'>central-district-of-california-finds-aca-set-aside-all-fcc-autodialer-guidance</guid>

					<pubDate>Tue, 04 Sep 2018 09:00:06 -0400</pubDate>
					<description><![CDATA[<p>In <em>Washington v. Six Continents Hotels, Inc.</em>, No. 2:16-CV-03719-ODW-JEM, 2018 WL 4092024 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), the Central District of California found that <em>ACA International v. FCC,</em> 885 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. 2018) [hereinafter <em>ACA</em>], set aside all prior FCC guidance regarding the definition of an autodialer.</p> <p>The plaintiff, Eric Washington ("Plaintiff"), alleged that Six Continents Hotels, Inc. ("Six Continents") sent him numerous unsolicited text messages using an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS") in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act&nbsp;... </p>]]></description>
</item>

				<item>
				<title>Eastern District of Michigan Finds Aspect System is Not an ATDS</title>
				<link>https://www.burr.com/consumer-finance-litigation/eastern-district-of-michigan-finds-aspect-system-is-not-an-atds</link>
<dc:creator>Kristen Peters Watson, Frank  Springfield</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink='false'>eastern-district-of-michigan-finds-aspect-system-is-not-an-atds</guid>

					<pubDate>Fri, 17 Aug 2018 09:00:07 -0400</pubDate>
					<description><![CDATA[<p>In <em>Keyes v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC</em>, No. 17-cv-11492, 2018 WL 3914707 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 16, 2018), the Eastern District of Michigan determined that the system Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC ("Ocwen") used to place calls, the Aspect Unified IP ("Aspect System"), was not an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS") within the meaning of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").</p> <p>Plaintiff Darcel Keyes ("Plaintiff") claimed Ocwen violated the TCPA by using its Aspect System to call her, despite her objections. <em>See id. </em>at *1. To support her claims, Plaintiff relied on an expert&nbsp;... </p>]]></description>
</item>

				<item>
				<title>District Court of Connecticut Follows Reyes Decision</title>
				<link>https://www.burr.com/consumer-finance-litigation/district-court-of-connecticut-follows-reyes-decision</link>
<dc:creator>Kristen Peters Watson</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink='false'>district-court-of-connecticut-follows-reyes-decision</guid>

					<pubDate>Wed, 15 Aug 2018 09:00:08 -0400</pubDate>
					<description><![CDATA[<p>In <em>Harris v. Navient Solutions, LLC</em>, No. 3:15-cv-564 (RNC), 2018 WL 3748155 (D. Conn. Aug. 7, 2018), the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut followed the Second Circuit's decision in <em>Reyes v. Lincoln Auto. Fin. Servs.</em>, 861 F.3d 51, 56 (2d Cir. 2017), which held that the TCPA did not permit unilateral revocation of consent to calls that was part of a bargained-for exchange. <em>See Reyes</em>, 861 F.3d at 56.</p> <p>The plaintiff, Jennifer Harris ("Plaintiff"), alleged Navient Solutions ("Navient") violated the TCPA by using an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS") to&nbsp;... </p>]]></description>
</item>

				<item>
				<title>Northern District of Alabama Holds Contractual Consent Cannot Be Revoked
Under TCPA</title>
				<link>https://www.burr.com/consumer-finance-litigation/northern-district-of-alabama-holds-contractual-consent-cannot-be-revoked-under-tcpa</link>
<dc:creator>Kristen Peters Watson</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink='false'>northern-district-of-alabama-holds-contractual-consent-cannot-be-revoked-under-tcpa</guid>

					<pubDate>Wed, 15 Aug 2018 09:00:09 -0400</pubDate>
					<description><![CDATA[<p>The Northern District of Alabama recently followed the Second Circuit's holding in <em>Reyes v. Lincoln Automotive Financial Services</em>, 861 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 2017), and held that consent provided in a contract as part of a bargained-for exchange could not be unilaterally revoked under the TCPA. With this holding, the Northern District of Alabama becomes the first court in the Eleventh Circuit to follow <em>Reyes</em>.</p> <p>In <em>Few v. Receivables Performance Management</em>, No. 1:17-CV-2038-KOB, 2018 WL 3772863 (N.D. Ala. Aug. 9, 2018), Plaintiff alleged that Defendant violated the TCPA by calling and&nbsp;... </p>]]></description>
</item>

				<item>
				<title>Georgia Federal Court Finds Dialing System is Not an ATDS  Due to Human
Intervention</title>
				<link>https://www.burr.com/consumer-finance-litigation/georgia-federal-court-finds-dialing-system-is-not-an-atds-due-to-human-intervention</link>
<dc:creator>Rachel R. Friedman, Frank  Springfield</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink='false'>georgia-federal-court-finds-dialing-system-is-not-an-atds-due-to-human-intervention</guid>

					<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2018 09:00:10 -0400</pubDate>
					<description><![CDATA[<p>In the wake of the D.C. Circuit's ruling in <em>ACA International v. Federal Communications Commission</em>, 885 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. 2018), which struck down the FCC's interpretations of "automatic telephone dialing system" ("ATDS") under the TCPA as "unreasonably, and impermissibly, expansive," courts are reevaluating what it takes to qualify as an ATDS under the statute. In <em>Maddox v. CBE Group, Inc.</em>, No. 1:17-cv-1909-SCJ (N.D. Ga. May 22, 2018), the Northern District of Georgia found the defendant's calling equipment required human intervention to place calls, and thus did not qualify&nbsp;... </p>]]></description>
</item>

			</channel></rss>