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
On September 4, 2025, in a 6-3 decision, the Washington Supreme Court held in Branson v. Washington Fine Wine & Spirits that a plaintiff need not prove he or she was a “bona fide” applicant to recover damages under...more
On August 26 2025, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida issued a useful decision for companies contesting National Do Not Call (“DNC”) claims. In Davis v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., the Court granted...more
In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, Chris Willis is joined by veteran litigators Jason Manning and Carter Nichols to explore litigation implications following the CFPB’s withdrawal of nearly 70 pieces of informal...more
On July 21, 2025, the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois issued an important decision for Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) defendants. In Jones et al. v. Blackstone Medical Services,...more
The Southern District of New York dismissed an action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), finding that there was no private right of action under section 1681s-2(a) for purportedly inaccurate reporting by a furnisher....more
The Sixth Circuit recently delivered a clear message to litigants pursuing claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA): high call volume alone is not enough. In Fluker v. Ally Financial, Inc., the court...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
In the final week of this year’s Supreme Court term, the Court issued several decisions that alter the role of federal agencies in the way laws are interpreted and enforced, and thus the way that business will be done in the...more
After the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) took effect on January 1, 2020, a surge of class action lawsuits predicated on alleged CCPA violations hit businesses. Because of the act’s novelty, it was unclear whether...more
Calif. Supreme Court: San Diegans for Open Government v. Public Facilities Financing Authority of the City of San Diego - Only a party to a contract may bring a legal action under Government Code section 1092 to invalidate...more
Once the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) takes effect on January 1, 2020, the California courts will be inundated with a litany of interpretive questions. One that will no doubt surface concerns the proper...more
The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution declares federal law to be the “supreme Law of the Land.” Thus, when federal law and state law conflict, the state law is “preempted,” or rendered without effect. Under...more
• On January 25, 2019, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a decision interpreting the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) in the Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp. appeal. The court ruled that a plaintiff does not...more
I make a point to never post on the weekends. But this is a huge deal. And although it is a beautiful autumn afternoon outside, we need to talk TCPAland. Congress just proposed a bill to attack robocalls by leveraging the...more