We get Privacy for work — Episode 8: The Surge in Data Breach Lawsuits: Trends and Tactics
Regulatory Rollback: CFPB’s Withdrawal of Informal Guidance Sparks New Litigation Dynamics – The Consumer Finance Podcast
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: Should Section 5 of the FTC Act be Amended to Add a Private Right of Action?
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: Challenges of Using the Current Law to Address Dark Patterns, with Guest Gregory Dickinson, Assistant Professor, St. Thomas University
Webinar Recording: An Overview of the American Data Privacy and Protection Act
CF on Cyber: An Update on the Changes to the Florida Telemarketing Act
In its October 2025 Term, the Supreme Court will decide whether Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“ICA”) creates a federal cause of action for private plaintiffs seeking rescission of contracts that are...more
On June 30, 2025, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in FS Credit Opportunities Corp., et al. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd., et al., 24-345 to resolve a circuit split over whether Section 47(b) of the Investment Company...more
On June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that will determine whether Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (ICA) creates a private right of action for shareholders of registered investment...more
On April 2, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic. At issue in Medina is § 1902(a)(23) of the Social Security Act (the Act),1 or the “free-choice-of-provider”...more
On Monday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act lacks a private right of action. The court affirmed an Arkansas federal district court’s holding that only the...more
In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s stay of a temporary injunction in NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, a closely watched case involving a novel Texas law purporting to...more
A few years ago, we told you about the “ongoing saga” surrounding the ability of a Medicaid beneficiary or a provider of health care services to a Medicaid beneficiary to challenge a state Medicaid agency’s putative violation...more
On May 13, 2019, in a 5-4 decision in Apple Inc. v. Pepper, the U.S. Supreme Court held that consumers of iPhone apps are direct purchasers of Apple and therefore have standing to sue the company for alleged monopolization of...more
In Frank v. Gaos, the Supreme Court appeared poised to decide a divisive class action issue: whether settlement awards to third-party charities (known as cy pres awards) are valid. On March 20, however, an 8-1 majority...more
On June 18, 2018, the Supreme Court decided Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, No. 17-21, holding in a 8-1 decision that the petitioner need not prove the absence of probable cause to maintain a § 1983 claim of retaliatory...more
Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued an important decision in Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida, 585 U.S. ___ (2018). The case does not involve land use or even free exercise of religion. ...more
Employee's Inability To Work For A Particular Supervisor Does Not Constitute A "Disability" - Higgins-Williams v. Sutter Med. Found., 237 Cal. App. 4th 78 (2015) - Michaelin Higgins-Williams worked as a clinical...more
On March 31, 2015, a 5-4 plurality of the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that Medicaid providers do not have a private right of action under the Medicaid statute to challenge reimbursement rates. The Supreme Court’s...more