The Eleventh Circuit recently took a huge bite out of consumers’ ability to bring class actions. In Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 33995 (11th Cir. Oct. 28, 2020) (en banc), the court uprooted the circuit’s plaintiff-friendly view of standing and forcefully held that consumers can’t sue for technical statutory violations.
Okay. Let’s huddle and talk TCPA for a moment. On July 6, 2020, in Barr v. AAPC, the Supreme Court upheld the TCPA and simply severed the unconstitutional 2015 government-debt exemption from the broader statute. So, here we are. Many of you likely already know our TCPAWorld defense team led by the Czar himself,
The Eleventh Circuit vacated a $490,000 punitive damages award last Friday for a single FCRA violation, finding that there wasn’t enough proof of a willful violation. Considering that the jury had initially awarded $3 million in punitives (which the trial court cut to $490,000 on due process grounds), this is a big win for Experian.
Biometric tech is everywhere. Think facial recognition, voice ID, fingerprints, retina scans (a la Minority Report or a million other sci-fi movies, except real and in the present). It’s probably how you unlock your phone every day, and how social media platforms ask if that photo some friend of a friend tagged is really you.
There hasn’t been much litigation in recent years over what constitutes a “firm offer.” And that’s probably, at least in part, because federal courts have allowed lenders to defeat consumer lawsuits by pointing to terms within the offers indicating that they intend to honor the offered credit. But that didn’t stop a California appellate court
