<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	>

<channel>
	<title>TCPA Archives | The Consumer Financial Services Blog</title>
	<atom:link href="https://consumerfsblog.com/category/tcpa/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://consumerfsblog.com/category/tcpa/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2024 17:14:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>

 
<site xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">71507780</site>	<item>
		<title>9th Cir. Holds TCPA ‘Prerecorded Voice’ Did Not Apply to Text Messages</title>
		<link>https://consumerfsblog.com/2023/08/9th-cir-holds-tcpa-prerecorded-voice-did-not-apply-to-text-messages/</link>
					<comments>https://consumerfsblog.com/2023/08/9th-cir-holds-tcpa-prerecorded-voice-did-not-apply-to-text-messages/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Maurice Wutscher LLP]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Aug 2023 15:39:28 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TCPA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ninth Circuit]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://consumerfsblog.com/?p=20043</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1200" height="800" src="https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/tcpa-class-action.jpeg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="tcpa class action" decoding="async" fetchpriority="high" srcset="https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/tcpa-class-action.jpeg 1200w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/tcpa-class-action-300x200.jpeg 300w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/tcpa-class-action-1024x683.jpeg 1024w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/tcpa-class-action-768x512.jpeg 768w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/tcpa-class-action-640x427.jpeg 640w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/tcpa-class-action-219x146.jpeg 219w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></p>
<p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed a trial court’s dismissal of a putative class action brought under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. In so ruling, the Ninth Circuit held that the text messages at issue did not use “prerecorded voices” under the TCPA because they did not include audible components.</p>
<p><a href="https://consumerfsblog.com/author/admin/">Maurice Wutscher LLP</a></p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://consumerfsblog.com/2023/08/9th-cir-holds-tcpa-prerecorded-voice-did-not-apply-to-text-messages/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">20043</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>9th Cir. Holds Phone ‘Subscriber’ Who Was Not the Phone&#8217;s User Had Article III Standing to Assert TCPA Claim</title>
		<link>https://consumerfsblog.com/2023/07/9th-cir-holds-phone-subscriber-who-was-not-the-phones-user-had-article-iii-standing-to-assert-tcpa-claim/</link>
					<comments>https://consumerfsblog.com/2023/07/9th-cir-holds-phone-subscriber-who-was-not-the-phones-user-had-article-iii-standing-to-assert-tcpa-claim/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jacob C. VanAusdall]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Jul 2023 15:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TCPA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ninth Circuit]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://consumerfsblog.com/?p=19999</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1200" height="800" src="https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/tcpa-litigation.jpeg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="tcpa litigation" decoding="async" srcset="https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/tcpa-litigation.jpeg 1200w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/tcpa-litigation-300x200.jpeg 300w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/tcpa-litigation-1024x683.jpeg 1024w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/tcpa-litigation-768x512.jpeg 768w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/tcpa-litigation-640x427.jpeg 640w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/tcpa-litigation-219x146.jpeg 219w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></p>
<p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that the owner and subscriber of a phone number listed on the Do Not Call Registry suffered an injury in fact sufficient to confer Article III standing when unwanted text messages were sent to the number in alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, even when the owner and subscriber was not the actual user of the phone.</p>
<p><a href="https://consumerfsblog.com/author/jacob-c-vanausdall/">Jacob C. VanAusdall</a></p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://consumerfsblog.com/2023/07/9th-cir-holds-phone-subscriber-who-was-not-the-phones-user-had-article-iii-standing-to-assert-tcpa-claim/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">19999</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>6th Cir. Holds Single Ringless Voicemail Enough for Article III Standing in TCPA Case</title>
		<link>https://consumerfsblog.com/2023/07/6th-cir-holds-single-ringless-voicemail-enough-for-article-iii-standing-in-tcpa-case/</link>
					<comments>https://consumerfsblog.com/2023/07/6th-cir-holds-single-ringless-voicemail-enough-for-article-iii-standing-in-tcpa-case/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jacob C. VanAusdall]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Jul 2023 15:48:52 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TCPA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sixth Circuit]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://consumerfsblog.com/?p=19983</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1200" height="800" src="https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/AdobeStock_476509307_Editorial_Use_Only-Photo-Tada-Images-stock.adobe_.com_.jpeg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="tcpa" decoding="async" srcset="https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/AdobeStock_476509307_Editorial_Use_Only-Photo-Tada-Images-stock.adobe_.com_.jpeg 1200w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/AdobeStock_476509307_Editorial_Use_Only-Photo-Tada-Images-stock.adobe_.com_-300x200.jpeg 300w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/AdobeStock_476509307_Editorial_Use_Only-Photo-Tada-Images-stock.adobe_.com_-1024x683.jpeg 1024w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/AdobeStock_476509307_Editorial_Use_Only-Photo-Tada-Images-stock.adobe_.com_-768x512.jpeg 768w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/AdobeStock_476509307_Editorial_Use_Only-Photo-Tada-Images-stock.adobe_.com_-640x427.jpeg 640w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/AdobeStock_476509307_Editorial_Use_Only-Photo-Tada-Images-stock.adobe_.com_-219x146.jpeg 219w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></p>
<p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently held that a single ringless voicemail is enough to confer standing to a plaintiff under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act.</p>
<p><a href="https://consumerfsblog.com/author/jacob-c-vanausdall/">Jacob C. VanAusdall</a></p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://consumerfsblog.com/2023/07/6th-cir-holds-single-ringless-voicemail-enough-for-article-iii-standing-in-tcpa-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">19983</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>7th Cir. Affirms Award of Over $600,000 in Class Notice Costs to TCPA Plaintiffs</title>
		<link>https://consumerfsblog.com/2023/06/7th-cir-affirms-award-of-over-600000-in-class-notice-costs-to-tcpa-plaintiffs/</link>
					<comments>https://consumerfsblog.com/2023/06/7th-cir-affirms-award-of-over-600000-in-class-notice-costs-to-tcpa-plaintiffs/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jacob C. VanAusdall]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jun 2023 14:13:31 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TCPA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Seventh Circuit]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://consumerfsblog.com/?p=19969</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1200" height="799" src="https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/tcpa-1.jpeg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="tcpa" decoding="async" srcset="https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/tcpa-1.jpeg 1200w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/tcpa-1-300x200.jpeg 300w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/tcpa-1-1024x682.jpeg 1024w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/tcpa-1-768x511.jpeg 768w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/tcpa-1-640x426.jpeg 640w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/tcpa-1-219x146.jpeg 219w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></p>
<p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed a trial court’s order allocating class notice costs in the amount of $602,838 to the defendant in a putative class action alleging violations of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act.</p>
<p><a href="https://consumerfsblog.com/author/jacob-c-vanausdall/">Jacob C. VanAusdall</a></p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://consumerfsblog.com/2023/06/7th-cir-affirms-award-of-over-600000-in-class-notice-costs-to-tcpa-plaintiffs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">19969</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fla. App. Court (3rd DCA) Dismisses TCPA Putative Class Action for Lack of Standing Under Florida Law</title>
		<link>https://consumerfsblog.com/2023/06/fla-app-court-3rd-dca-dismisses-tcpa-putative-class-action-for-lack-of-standing-under-florida-law/</link>
					<comments>https://consumerfsblog.com/2023/06/fla-app-court-3rd-dca-dismisses-tcpa-putative-class-action-for-lack-of-standing-under-florida-law/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jacob C. VanAusdall]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Jun 2023 18:03:08 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TCPA]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://consumerfsblog.com/?p=19952</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1200" height="800" src="https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/tcpa.jpeg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="tcpa" decoding="async" srcset="https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/tcpa.jpeg 1200w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/tcpa-300x200.jpeg 300w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/tcpa-1024x683.jpeg 1024w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/tcpa-768x512.jpeg 768w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/tcpa-640x427.jpeg 640w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/tcpa-219x146.jpeg 219w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></p>
<p>The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, recently dismissed a putative class action asserting allegedly unwanted text messages under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act for lack of standing under Florida law.</p>
<p><a href="https://consumerfsblog.com/author/jacob-c-vanausdall/">Jacob C. VanAusdall</a></p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://consumerfsblog.com/2023/06/fla-app-court-3rd-dca-dismisses-tcpa-putative-class-action-for-lack-of-standing-under-florida-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">19952</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Calif. Supreme Court Holds TCPA Claims May Be Covered by CGL Policy Provision for Violation of ‘Right to Privacy’</title>
		<link>https://consumerfsblog.com/2023/02/calif-supreme-court-holds-tcpa-claims-may-be-covered-by-cgl-policy-provision-for-violation-of-right-to-privacy/</link>
					<comments>https://consumerfsblog.com/2023/02/calif-supreme-court-holds-tcpa-claims-may-be-covered-by-cgl-policy-provision-for-violation-of-right-to-privacy/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Maurice Wutscher LLP]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2023 14:58:04 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Insurance Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TCPA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insurance law]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://consumerfsblog.com/?p=19631</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1200" height="505" src="https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/CaliforniaSupremeCourt.jpeg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="California Supreme Court" decoding="async" srcset="https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/CaliforniaSupremeCourt.jpeg 1200w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/CaliforniaSupremeCourt-300x126.jpeg 300w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/CaliforniaSupremeCourt-1024x431.jpeg 1024w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/CaliforniaSupremeCourt-768x323.jpeg 768w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/CaliforniaSupremeCourt-640x269.jpeg 640w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></p>
<p>The California Supreme Court recently answered a certified question from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, holding that a commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurance policy that provides coverage for “injury ... arising out of ... [o]ral or written publication, in any manner, of material that violates a person’s right of privacy” can cover liability for intrusion on the right of seclusion arising from violations of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act if such coverage is consistent with the insured’s objectively reasonable expectations.</p>
<p><a href="https://consumerfsblog.com/author/admin/">Maurice Wutscher LLP</a></p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://consumerfsblog.com/2023/02/calif-supreme-court-holds-tcpa-claims-may-be-covered-by-cgl-policy-provision-for-violation-of-right-to-privacy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">19631</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>A 2022 Review of FDCPA, FCRA and TCPA Opinions from the Second and Third Circuits</title>
		<link>https://consumerfsblog.com/2022/12/a-2022-review-of-fdcpa-fcra-and-tcpa-opinions-from-the-second-and-third-circuits/</link>
					<comments>https://consumerfsblog.com/2022/12/a-2022-review-of-fdcpa-fcra-and-tcpa-opinions-from-the-second-and-third-circuits/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Thomas Dominczyk]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2022 19:34:36 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Consumer Financial Services Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FCRA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FDCPA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TCPA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Debt Collection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Receivables]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Second Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Third Circuit]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://consumerfsblog.com/?p=19423</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1200" height="809" src="https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/2ndcircuit.jpeg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="second circuit" decoding="async" srcset="https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/2ndcircuit.jpeg 1200w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/2ndcircuit-300x202.jpeg 300w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/2ndcircuit-1024x690.jpeg 1024w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/2ndcircuit-768x518.jpeg 768w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/2ndcircuit-640x431.jpeg 640w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></p>
<p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was relatively quiet when it came to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, only issuing three opinions.</p>
<p><a href="https://consumerfsblog.com/author/tdominczyk/">Thomas Dominczyk</a></p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://consumerfsblog.com/2022/12/a-2022-review-of-fdcpa-fcra-and-tcpa-opinions-from-the-second-and-third-circuits/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">19423</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>9th Cir. Holds TCPA Autodialer Must Generate and Dial Random or Sequential Phone Numbers</title>
		<link>https://consumerfsblog.com/2022/12/9th-cir-holds-tcpa-autodialer-must-generate-and-dial-random-or-sequential-phone-numbers/</link>
					<comments>https://consumerfsblog.com/2022/12/9th-cir-holds-tcpa-autodialer-must-generate-and-dial-random-or-sequential-phone-numbers/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Maurice Wutscher LLP]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2022 14:54:42 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TCPA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ninth Circuit]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://consumerfsblog.com/?p=19417</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1200" height="800" src="https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/tcpa-1.jpeg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="tcpa" decoding="async" srcset="https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/tcpa-1.jpeg 1200w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/tcpa-1-300x200.jpeg 300w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/tcpa-1-1024x683.jpeg 1024w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/tcpa-1-768x512.jpeg 768w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/tcpa-1-640x427.jpeg 640w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></p>
<p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of a putative class action suit brought under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act because another panel of the Ninth Circuit had previously held that an autodialer must generate and dial random or sequential telephone numbers under the TCPA's plain text.</p>
<p><a href="https://consumerfsblog.com/author/admin/">Maurice Wutscher LLP</a></p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://consumerfsblog.com/2022/12/9th-cir-holds-tcpa-autodialer-must-generate-and-dial-random-or-sequential-phone-numbers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">19417</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>9th Cir. Holds Companies Can Sue Under ATDS Provisions of TCPA, Mixed-Use Cell Phones Can Be ‘Residential’</title>
		<link>https://consumerfsblog.com/2022/12/9th-cir-holds-companies-can-sue-under-atds-provisions-of-tcpa-mixed-use-cell-phones-can-be-residential/</link>
					<comments>https://consumerfsblog.com/2022/12/9th-cir-holds-companies-can-sue-under-atds-provisions-of-tcpa-mixed-use-cell-phones-can-be-residential/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Maurice Wutscher LLP]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Dec 2022 16:03:28 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[TCPA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ninth Circuit]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://consumerfsblog.com/?p=19365</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1200" height="800" src="https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/tcpa.jpeg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="tcpa claim" decoding="async" srcset="https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/tcpa.jpeg 1200w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/tcpa-300x200.jpeg 300w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/tcpa-1024x683.jpeg 1024w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/tcpa-768x512.jpeg 768w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/tcpa-640x427.jpeg 640w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></p>
<p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit recently reversed a trial court’s judgment dismissing a federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint brought by a group of home improvement contractors for lack of statutory standing.</p>
<p><a href="https://consumerfsblog.com/author/admin/">Maurice Wutscher LLP</a></p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://consumerfsblog.com/2022/12/9th-cir-holds-companies-can-sue-under-atds-provisions-of-tcpa-mixed-use-cell-phones-can-be-residential/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">19365</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>9th Cir. Upholds Dismissal of TCPA Putative Class Action Applying Duguid</title>
		<link>https://consumerfsblog.com/2022/11/9th-cir-upholds-dismissal-of-tcpa-putative-class-action-applying-duguid/</link>
					<comments>https://consumerfsblog.com/2022/11/9th-cir-upholds-dismissal-of-tcpa-putative-class-action-applying-duguid/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Maurice Wutscher LLP]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Nov 2022 12:46:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TCPA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[9th Circuit]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://consumerfsblog.com/?p=19297</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1200" height="800" src="https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/AdobeStock_294532589_Editorial_Use_Only.jpeg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="tcpa" decoding="async" srcset="https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/AdobeStock_294532589_Editorial_Use_Only.jpeg 1200w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/AdobeStock_294532589_Editorial_Use_Only-300x200.jpeg 300w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/AdobeStock_294532589_Editorial_Use_Only-1024x683.jpeg 1024w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/AdobeStock_294532589_Editorial_Use_Only-768x512.jpeg 768w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/AdobeStock_294532589_Editorial_Use_Only-640x427.jpeg 640w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></p>
<p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently upheld the dismissal of a putative class action for alleged violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act.</p>
<p><a href="https://consumerfsblog.com/author/admin/">Maurice Wutscher LLP</a></p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://consumerfsblog.com/2022/11/9th-cir-upholds-dismissal-of-tcpa-putative-class-action-applying-duguid/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">19297</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>11th Cir. Vacates $35 Million TCPA Class Settlement on Article III Standing Grounds</title>
		<link>https://consumerfsblog.com/2022/08/11th-cir-vacates-35-million-tcpa-class-settlement-on-article-iii-standing-grounds/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ralph T. Wutscher]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Aug 2022 14:15:49 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TCPA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Eleventh Circuit]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://consumerfsblog.com/?p=18779</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1200" height="800" src="https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/tcpa-class-action.jpeg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="tcpa class action" decoding="async" srcset="https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/tcpa-class-action.jpeg 1200w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/tcpa-class-action-300x200.jpeg 300w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/tcpa-class-action-1024x683.jpeg 1024w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/tcpa-class-action-768x512.jpeg 768w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/tcpa-class-action-640x427.jpeg 640w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></p>
<p>In an appeal of a $35 million federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action settlement initially involving a dispute over coupon settlements, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded the trial court's approval of the class action settlement due to Article III standing problems with the settlement class.</p>
<p><a href="https://consumerfsblog.com/author/ralph-wutscher/">Ralph T. Wutscher</a></p>
]]></description>
		
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">18779</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>11th Cir. Upholds Denial of Attorney&#8217;s Fees From Common Fund in Class Settlement</title>
		<link>https://consumerfsblog.com/2022/07/11th-cir-upholds-denial-of-attorneys-fees-from-common-fund-in-class-settlement/</link>
					<comments>https://consumerfsblog.com/2022/07/11th-cir-upholds-denial-of-attorneys-fees-from-common-fund-in-class-settlement/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Maurice Wutscher LLP]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2022 14:54:44 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TCPA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Eleventh Circuit]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://consumerfsblog.com/?p=18759</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1200" height="800" src="https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/tcpa-class-action.jpeg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="tcpa class action" decoding="async" srcset="https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/tcpa-class-action.jpeg 1200w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/tcpa-class-action-300x200.jpeg 300w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/tcpa-class-action-1024x683.jpeg 1024w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/tcpa-class-action-768x512.jpeg 768w, https://consumerfsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/tcpa-class-action-640x427.jpeg 640w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></p>
<p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed a trial court’s denial of a plaintiff counsel’s motion for attorney’s fees, finding the firm’s prioritization of their interests over those of the class cut off any entitlement to attorney’s fees.</p>
<p><a href="https://consumerfsblog.com/author/admin/">Maurice Wutscher LLP</a></p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://consumerfsblog.com/2022/07/11th-cir-upholds-denial-of-attorneys-fees-from-common-fund-in-class-settlement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">18759</post-id>	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
