In That Case: Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy
The Justice Insiders Podcast: Jarkesy’s Implications for the Administrative State
5 Key Takeaways | ITC Litigation and Enforcement Conference
Recent Trends in Article III Standing - The Consumer Finance Podcast
AGG Talks: Background Screening - A Refresher on Responding to Consumer File Requests under Section 609 of the FCRA
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS in Review, Biden Acts to Limit Non-Competes, NY HERO Act Model Safety Plans - Employment Law This Week®
SCOTUS Watch: The ACA and Key Health Law Areas Justice Barrett Could Impact - Diagnosing Health Care Podcast
Podcast: Texas v. United States of America
Polsinelli Podcasts - Supreme Court Closes Gap on Bankruptcy Issue
In March, a district court in the Eastern District of California followed other courts holding that an undated, model form debt validation notice does not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Specifically,...more
Yesterday might ultimately be remembered as among the most consequential days in the history of the Supreme Court and the nation. That will be determined when a decision in Trump v. Anderson is issued....more
On December 5, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States in Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer, declined to substantively address a question businesses across the country have been eager to resolve: That is, whether a “tester”...more
Although the Supreme Court already has heard a number of significant arguments, this term has not yet seen any major substantive opinions. This is not to say that there isn’t a lot going on at, or on the way to, the Court....more
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) issued its much anticipated ruling in Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer vacating the matter as moot. Doing so, SCOTUS left private business owners grappling with the existing...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: SCOTUS’s refusal to clarify standing requirements for “tester” plaintiffs in ADA Title III lawsuits means it’s business as usual for the plaintiffs’ bar....more
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States issued one decision: Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer, No. 22-429: Deborah Laufer sued hundreds of hotels under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: SCOTUS asked revealing questions in Wednesday's Acheson v. Laufer oral argument, but left attendees wondering whether the Court will provide much-needed guidance on the so-called “tester standing” issue...more
On September 15, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied the defendant’s summary judgment motion holding instead that a bank levy against the plaintiff served as a basis for standing to assert a claim...more
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a suit holding that the plaintiff had not suffered a concrete injury, and therefore, lacked standing to assert a claim under the Fair Debt...more
In Valentine v. Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Fylnn LLP the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey found that the plaintiff had not suffered an injury in fact and therefore lacked standing to assert a claim under...more
The Eleventh Circuit has now joined seven other circuits in holding that receipt of unwanted text messages constitutes concrete injury for standing. On July 24, the Eleventh Circuit issued an en banc decision in Drazen v....more
In its 2016 decision in Spokeo v. Robins, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff alleging a Fair Credit Reporting Act violation does not have standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution to sue for statutory...more
On May 11, 2023, US District Court, M.D. Florida found a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) violation can occur even where the intended human recipient of a fax did not print and review the fax or did not know that...more
Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it will hear the case of Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer and finally resolve the question of whether “tester” plaintiffs have standing to sue a hotel company that fails to...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: SCOTUS grants certiorari on an ADA Title III case for the first time in 18 years to resolve a circuit split on whether an ADA plaintiff has standing to sue without having any intention of frequenting the...more
On November 2, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida held, sua sponte, that a plaintiff did not have standing to bring a class action suit alleging a TCPA violation. The February 9, 2022 complaint...more
In a revised opinion issued September 8, 2022, an en banc panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed last year’s controversial opinion which potentially spelled trouble for debt collectors utilizing third-party...more
On September 8, 2022, in Hunstein v. Preferred Collection and Management Services, Inc. , No. 19-14434, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued an en banc decision which departs significantly from the panel decision on...more
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin recently held that Synchrony Bank did not violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) when it mistakenly requested a consumer’s credit report. In Carlson v....more
CASES OF NOTE - SIMILAR PROJECTS, DIFFERENT DECISIONS - Brossi, et al. v. Town of Grafton Planning Board, et al., No. 19 MISC 000551 (MDV), 2021 WL 5833935 (Mass. Land Ct. Dec. 9, 2021) - The Massachusetts Land...more
The latest update surrounding Hunstein v. Preferred Collection and Management Services, Inc., Case No. 19-14434 centers not on the Eleventh Circuit or the Hunstein decision itself but on the district courts nationwide that...more
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has issued its ruling on the motion for rehearing in Hunstein v. Preferred Collection and Management Services, Inc., Case No. 19-14434 but most of the troublesome aspects of the Court’s...more
In a surprise to many, an arguably rogue panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has now reaffirmed its earlier decision from Hunstein v. Preferred Collection, 994 F.3d 1341, holding that (1) a plaintiff...more
Widening a split among courts that have considered the issue, a North Carolina district court held that a violation of the Do Not Call (DNC) regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) triggered liability under...more