The CFPB amicus brief before the 11th Circuit in Wiley v. Notte & Kreyling, P.C.deals with advising consumers to dispute a debt with the creditor and not the collector. The FDCPA requires that debt collectors disclose the specific steps consumers must take to properly dispute a debt or request information about the original creditor.
The FDCPA requires a debt collector, in certain situations, to “send the consumer a written notice containing” information about the debt and the consumer’s rights. 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a). The question addressed in this amicus brief is: Whether the requirements of the E-SIGN Act, 15 U.S.C. § 7001-7006, apply when a debt collector wants to use an email to satisfy the written-notice requirement of § 1692g(a).
The Seventh Circuit invited the CFPB to present an amicus brief in Preston v. Midland Credit Management. The issue presented deals with the fact that the FDCPA prohibits debt collectors from “using any language or symbol, other than the debt collector’s address, on any envelope when communicating with a consumer by use of the mails or by telegram, except that a debt collector may use his business name if such name does not indicate that he is in the debt collection business.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(8).
The Electronic Privacy Information Center (“EPIC”) filed this amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) case, McCurley v. Royal Seas Cruises, Inc. (9th Cir.). The defendant claims that it cannot be held responsible for the violations of the TCPA committed by the third-party lead generator it hired to contact potential customers.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center drafted this amicus brief in Panzarella v. Navient Solutions, LLC (3rd Cir.) relating to the breadth of the definition of "automatic telephone dialing system" under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”).
The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) drafted this amicus brief in Guthrie v. PHH Mortg. Corp. (4th Cir.) in a case involving the Telephone Consumer Protection Act's prohibition of autodialed calls to cell phones without the called party's consent. The amicus brief argues that the definition of autodialer in the statute should be interpreted in a way that encompasses many dialers in use today. The brief closely analyzes the Supreme Court's 2021 decision in Facebook, Inc. v.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center drafted this amicus brief in Trim v. Reward Zone USA LLC (9th Cir.) in a case involving the TCPA’s prohibition of autodialed calls to cell phones without the called party's consent. The amicus brief argues that the definition of autodialer in the statute should be interpreted in a way that
NCLC filed this amicus brief, joined by several consumer groups, asking the 11th Circuit for rehearing en banc in Salcedo v. Hanna, 936 F.3d 1162 (11th Cir. 2019). The case holds that a consumer lacked Article III standing under Spokeo to bring a class action under the TCPA against a firm that sent him, and thousands of other individuals, an unwanted telemarketing text message.
This is an amicus brief before the 11th Circuit, drafted by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, dealing with the definition of an autodialer. In Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 141 S. Ct. 1163 (2021), the U.S.
This 2019 amicus brief prepared by the Solicitor General deals with the question whether the discovery rule applies to the FDCPA statute of limitations.