- Posts by Scott Shaffer
PartnerScott has focused on complex commercial litigation and arbitration involving advertising and marketing law, class action defense, administrative investigations, contractual disputes, consumer fraud, and business ...
The United States District Court in Western District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment against woman with 35 cell phones.
Pennsylvania woman had 35 cell phones to attract calls!
Olshan Partners Andrew Lustigman and Scott Shaffer authored an article published in the New York Law Journal’s Cybersecurity Law Report on June 3, 2016, entitled “Online Discount Pricing Policies Face Increasing Scrutiny”, illuminating the issues surrounding online pricing practices.
But Spokeo does not definitively define what an injury-in-fact is.
Summary of the significant developments in consumer protection law during March - April 2016.
New York can serve as both the host forum and the source of law for international business disputes.
Two largest operators agree to pause New York entries while legislature considers regulation
Abercrombie & Fitch sent text message to cell phone’s prior owner
Justice Ginsburg suggests, but does not approve, a new strategy
FCC to treat text message senders differently from fax broadcasters
Yahoo facing liability to half a million text message recipients
Defendants on the hook for tens of millions of dollars
Payment methods, Verification, Do Not Call provisions among those modified
Many businesses involved in online commerce seek to reduce the risk of lawsuits by including arbitration clauses and class action waivers in their website terms and conditions.
Prerecorded message must actually play during call to trigger TCPA liability
Appellate court allows man to sue for call made to his roommate’s phone
Industry leaders accused of allowing “insider trading”
Magazine subscription program defeats Do Not Call lawsuit
Commissioner’s speech hints at more rulings to come
Eleventh Circuit allows autodialed calls to later-acquired cell phone number
“Human intervention” was key to avoiding TCPA liability
Total judgment awarded to cable subscriber is $229,500
Telemarketer’s Do Not Call Violations Cost Business $6 Million
Eighth Circuit Rules On “Survey” Used To Promote Movie
FCC schedules a vote on the commissioner’s proposals for June 18th.
Oral arguments scheduled for October; Decision likely in 2016
Andrew Lustigman and Scott Shaffer Discuss TCPA Lawsuits and Implications on Telemarketers in new Inside Counsel article.
Proposal would require online merchants to change the way they do business.
Court rules that a person does not have to actually send a fax in order to be considered the legal sender.
FCC clarifies a confusing TCPA provision, leaving businesses hoping for clarity on other points.
Compliance with the TCPA consent requirements remains a daunting task fraught with peril.
New law calls for penalties of up to $20,000 per violation.
Court of Appeals ruling offers broad interpretation of prior express consent.
“Middleman” responsible for subcontractor’s TCPA violation.
The Ninth Circuit’s ruling allows selective posting and arranging of content but does not preclude future lawsuits.
A current FCC review could significantly reduce TCPA litigation.
Scott Shaffer wrote an article for Bloomberg publications and was quoted in Law360 on the effects of the record-setting TCPA settlement for Capital One.
Plaintiffs Failed To Propose A Feasible Way To Identify Class Members
Pom Wonderful’s Lanham Act suit over pomegranate-blueberry drink to go forward.
Illinois court sides with text recipient over Path.
Sprint also agrees to preventative measures.
FCC Creates Exception To TCPA’s Prior Express Consent Requirement.
Scott Shaffer was quoted in Law360's article, "Appeals Courts Further Muddy Phone-Call Privacy Laws."
The U.S. Supreme Court has clarified the standard for bringing false advertising claims under the Lanham Act.
Court: the question of consent is often a fact-intensive inquiry and may vary with the circumstances of the parties.
California court allows texting class action to proceed vs. search engine.
In Gragg v. Orange Cab Company, decided on February 7, 2014 in the Western District of Washington, a class-action defendant accused of sending mass texting messages without prior consent was granted partial summary judgment on all claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
Partner Scott Shaffer was quoted in a Law360 article about the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act (DATA Act).
In Shelton v. Restaurant.com, decided on November 4, 2013, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that a one-year expiration date for a restaurant gift certificate violated a New Jersey statute with a cumbersome name, the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act (TCCWNA).
In Carrera v. Bayer Corporation, decided August 21, 2013, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued an important ruling making class certification more difficult to achieve in certain consumer class actions.
On September 17, 2013, from 12:30-1:30pm Eastern time, Olshan will present the webinar Important Changes To The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA): What You and Your Client Need To Know.
We blogged about how the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals opened the door for Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class actions in Michigan by ruling that state prohibitions on class actions had no effect on federal lawsuits.
In Gordon v. Softech International, decided on July 31, 2013, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit tacked the issue of whether someone who discloses information obtained from the department of motor vehicles should be responsible when the information is misused by the person who received the information.
In Keim v. ADF MidAtlantic, LLC, decided on July 15, 2013 in the Southern District of Florida, the defendants were allowed to moot the threat of a class action by paying the plaintiff everything he demanded on his individual claim.
In Luskin v. Seminole Comedy, Inc., decided on June 19, 2013 in the Southern District of Florida, Judge Robert Scola denied a motion to dismiss a case concerning text messages, even though the plaintiff had provided his telephone number to the text sender.
In United States vs. Mortgage Investors Corp. of Ohio, filed in the Middle District of Florida on June 25, 2013, a home loan refinancing company agreed to pay a $7.5 million civil penalty for allegedly violating Do Not Call provisions of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR).
In Mais v. Gulf Coast Collection Bureau, decided on May 8, 2013, in the Southern District of Florida, the court awarded the plaintiff $7500 for fifteen calls to his cell phone made by a debt collector.
In Standard Mutual Insurance v. Ted Lay Real Estate, decided on May 23, 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the TCPA's $500-per-call damages provision is not punitive in nature. The significance of this ruling is that, at least in Illinois, TCPA damages can be insured by marketers.
On May 9, 2013, the FCC clarified the extent to which sellers can be held liable for robo-calls and texts sent by third-party marketers on their behalf.
Here is a look at four recent class-action lawsuits under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA):
The Supreme Court of the United States has closed a loophole used by class action plaintiffs to avoid trying their cases federal court. The case, entitled Standard Fire Insurance v. Knowles, was decided on March 19, 2013.
Commercial text messengers, take note: an Alabama-based bank avoided a federal lawsuit by putting an arbitration clause in its terms and conditions.
In December, we warned that New Jersey could see a boom in Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class actions. Now it looks like Michigan will get hit with a similar increase in telemarketing-related suits.
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, pharmaceutical sales representative Alfred Caronia was convicted of conspiracy to introduce a misbranded drug into interstate commerce, a misdemeanor.
A recent series of rulings will likely trigger an avalanche of class action lawsuits over unwanted text messages and robocalls, particularly in the State of New Jersey.
This week, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued an order covering the same issue, but with a key limitation that creates a serious legal risk every time a marketer acknowledges an opt-out request with a confirmatory text.
The Western District of Washington has joined the Northern District of Illinois and the entire state of California as a hotbed of activity for Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action suits.
It is not always easy to distinguish between telemarketing and informational calls because the line between the two can often become blurred.
Two recent decisions clear up the issue of when an advertiser can be held legally responsible under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) for the illegal acts of its representatives.
District of New Jersey Judge Renee Marie Bumb has placed an unusual requirement the Federal Trade Commission as a condition for approving a settlement the FTC wants to enter into with the marketers of a weight loss supplement.
Sanity has prevailed in a Southern California lawsuit concerning the sending of text messages. A lawsuit claiming that the simple acknowledgment of an opt-out request violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) was dismissed.
A federal appeals court affirmed that companies using automated dialers can be sued for calling a telephone number, even if they had permission to call the number from the prior subscriber to that phone number.
A group that sells discounted medical services won a substantial legal victory in the District of New Jersey, gaining a full dismissal of a $100 million telemarketing lawsuit filed by Verizon and OnStar, the car phone service.
A recent case provides three valuable lessons to advertisers involved in proceedings before the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau (commonly referred to as the NAD).
Google and co-defendant Slide, Inc. will have to defend a class-action lawsuit in the Northern District of California after Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied a motion to dismiss based on First Amendment grounds.
On February 15, 2012, the FCC revised its rules to completely eliminate the established business relationship exemption for pre-recorded and artificial voice calls and to require prior express written consent for all telemarketing calls to wireless numbers.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act trumps the Credit Repair Organizations Act, and consumers who agree to terms containing an arbitration clause have waived their right to sue in court.
The National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus recommended that a retailer discontinue its pricing comparison claims as they relate to suggested retail pricing.
The United States Supreme Court has spoken, and the doors of federal courthouses are now fully open to anyone wishing to sue telemarketers under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Roberts remarked, "this is the strangest statute I have ever seen." He was talking about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA.
By now, any company that provides consumers with terms and conditions covering the terms of sale should be aware of the Supreme Court's recent decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion. That decision, issued earlier this year, enforced an arbitration clause and a class action waiver provisions to prevent dissatisfied consumers from filing class actions or even suing at all.
President Obama, as part of his plan for economic growth and deficit reduction, is proposing to relax a portion of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act as applied to government debt collection efforts.
A suggestion that all direct marketers should follow: when a disgruntled customer asks for a refund, give it.
On August 10, 2011, Badie Jaber, a California resident, filed a class action lawsuit against NASCAR alleging she received an unsolicited text message from the auto racing federation.
Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court agreed to resolve a dispute concerning the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), a federal law regulating unsolicited faxes and telephone calls to cell phones and numbers on the Do Not Call list.
These days, class-action lawsuits for illegal telemarketing calls are popping up like weeds or flowers (depending on your perspective) in a spring garden. The statute in question, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA, holds not only the caller responsible for illegal calls, but in some cases, the party on whose behalf the call was made.
A Missouri tattoo artist named S. Victor Whitmill sued the studio producing the eagerly anticipated movie The Hangover II because, get ready for this, the movie and its promotional material includes reproductions of the tattoo that Whitmill inked onto the face of boxer-turned-thespian Mike Tyson.
Gutierrez v. Barclays Group is a class action filed in federal court in the Southern District of California under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. 227).
A recent federal court ruling in the Southern District of New York was a blow to plaintiffs who seek to sue telemarketers under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").
A class-action lawsuit filed by a football fan angered over one team's documented cheating has been dismissed on the basis that the fans did not suffer any loss by watching an NFL game that was not played according to the rules.
Companies charging their customers annual membership fees should take notice of a recent lawsuit that cost retail giant Costco quite a bit of money.