We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
Parties in a putative class action alleging that defendant
improperly raised annual percentage rates charged to its credit
card holders have reached a $10 million settlement. Plaintiff
alleged that defendant had sought to raise the APR on her credit
card to more than double the "fixed" rate stated in her
card agreement. According to plaintiff, the bank offered her the
option of accepting the increased rate or canceling her credit card
despite plaintiff's insistence that she had never missed a
payment. Plaintiff filed suit on behalf of a putative class of
132,000 credit card customers, alleging violation of the California
Business and Professions Code and the Truth in Lending Act.
Defendant subsequently agreed to settle the lawsuit for 40% of the
claimed damages, including attorneys' fees and payment to
the named plaintiff.
Goodwin Procter LLP is one of the nation's leading law
firms, with a team of 700 attorneys and offices in Boston, Los
Angeles, New York, San Diego, San Francisco and Washington, D.C.
The firm combines in-depth legal knowledge with practical business
experience to deliver innovative solutions to complex legal
problems. We provide litigation, corporate law and real estate
services to clients ranging from start-up companies to Fortune 500
multinationals, with a focus on matters involving private equity,
technology companies, real estate capital markets, financial
services, intellectual property and products liability.
In moving for summary judgment, Nike argued that under its policies and procedures a credit card customer could not have reasonably perceived Nike's request for a ZIP code as a condition to completing a credit card transaction.
Telephone subscribers who knowingly release their phone numbers to a business will be deemed to have given their invitation or consent to the called at the number which they have given, absent instruction to the contrary.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has enacted a new rule that will prohibit the inclusion of mandatory arbitration provisions and waivers of federal statutory causes of action in consumer mortgage and home equity loan agreements.
A federal court in the Western District of Wisconsin has now expanded the reach of the TCPA beyond auto/predictive dialers, holding in Nelson v. Santander Consumer USA that the federal statute may apply to calls even if an auto/predictive dialer is not used to initiate them.
The CFPB took the first step in enforcing the "abusive" standard under the Dodd-Frank Act’s prohibition of unfair, deceptive and abusive acts and practices by filing a federal action against a Florida debt-relief company.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York announced a joint law enforcement effort in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York involving a debt-settlement business and its principals.
In a recent case involving Papa John’s Pizza, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia provided some contour to just what "absent instructions to the contrary" means.
Just two months after the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Canning v. National Labor Relations Board that President Barack Obama's January 2012 appointment of three new members of the National Labor Relations Board was "constitutionally invalid," a split panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has followed suit, invalidating another NLRB action.
