This month, the Supreme Court made a decision on two client coverage instances that have an effect on the automotive financing industry: one that seriously impedes the Federal Trade Commission’s ability to seek financial compensation for unfair or misleading practices; and the other, which clarifies what constitutes an automatic numbering formula under the Consumer Protection Act by phone.
The Supreme Court ruled last week in favor of an asset control company related to the FTC’s ability to punish companies for false or misleading advertising.
In that case, the FTC received $1. 27 billion in restitution from the payday lender on the basis that its so-called loan program distorted the terms of the loans.
The challenge was, first, the idea of limiting himself to the application of false advertising, Hudson Cook’s spouse Mark Rooney wrote in an October 2020 article, and would not be the FTC’s ability to seek financial reimbursement for unfair or misleading acts or practices.
However, the April 22 verdict appears to have brought a longer procedure for the FTC, which will now have to unload a restraining order and abstain through its own administrative procedure, and then register a separate claim for financial reimbursement in court.
The court said the FTC’s powers to discharge financial aid had never legalized the firm to reimburse corporations for ill-gotten proceeds from the proceedings it had used for more than 40 years.
The FTC’s interim president, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, said in a statement that the court “has ruled in favor of criminals and fraudulent corporations, letting average Americans pay for illegal behavior. “
“With this decision, the Court disadvantaged the FTC with the toughest tool we had for consumers when they needed it to the fullest,” Slaughter said.
Over the more than five years, the FTC has returned $11. 2 billion in rebates to consumers, he said.
According to Hudson Cook partner Michael Goodman, the new layers of bureaucracy will charge time and prices to the procedure of obtaining financial aid for unfair or misleading acts or practices, and possibly deter the company from obtaining financial aid.
“This is almost the retracement of the FTC’s financial aid option absolutely in its typical cases,” Goodman said. “We don’t know how many defendants will still have cash after all this procedure has gone in and gone. “
Current FTC law refers to “court orders and restraining orders” for cases of misleading advertising, but the FTC seeks restitution in such cases, i. e. from car dealerships.
Historically, the FTC has been able to sue corporations in two ways: before an administration issues judgment within the FTC to grant a court order; or seek a court order in federal court and, in all likelihood, financial compensation, according to Anthony Badaracco, spouse of the dorsey law firm
It’s just a technical distinction, Badaracco. La resolution can take a long time and load into a procedure that has been in the FTC for several years.
“If you have to go through the firstArray administrative procedure . . . you can also charge [another] two or three years into the procedure,” Badaracco said. “If you’re a criminal, it’s probably a little less difficult to get away with what you’re looking to do, because the FTC is less likely to sue you. That’s the FTC’s position. “
The FTC will already revoke the resolution by strengthening its legal authority.
In testimony to the Chamber of Commerce and Energy’s subcommittee on customer coverage and commerce, the FTC asked Congress to pass a law to revive the FTC’s ability to seek monetary compensation. Congress is likely to strive to amend the FTC’s law in this regard. Goodman said.
“The FTC is arguing before Congress: “Let’s go back to what’s been doing for decades and it worked for everyone,” Goodman said. “So rewrite the FTC law the way you want to explain that we have that power. “
The court ruled in favor of the social media company in the case, clarifying how companies outline an automatic telephone dialing formula under the Consumer Phone Protection Act.
The case began in 2014 when Noah Duguid claimed that although he had never used the social media platform Facebook, he had gained text messages from the site about account disruptions. The U. S. Ninth Circuit Court decided that text messages violated TCPA, even though text messages were not the result of a formula that generates random sequential numbers.
The Consumer Phone Protection Act, passed by Congress in 1991, prohibits automatic calls without the consent of the receiving party, unless “such calls are in an emergency that affects consumer fitness and protection”.
The April 1 Supreme Court ruling was taken into our minds only because a company has a generation of appeals to buy or dial multiple numbers, it does not automatically subject the company to the duty of TCPA.
Celia Winslow, senior vice president of the American Financial Services Association, said in an email that the organization was pleased that the court had provided a much-needed explanation of what constitutes an automatic numerator.
The organization presented an amicus report on the case along with other professional associations highlighting considerations on how THEA recently defines an automatic telephone dialing system. One factor raised the concept that a smartphone can be interpreted as an automatic dialer, which causes each iPhone to call a TCPA violation.
AFSA is a national industry agreement for customer credits that represents many of the country’s auto lenders.
“We expect the Court’s common sense ruling to reduce the number of frivolous TCPA trials that enrich plaintiffs’ lawyers at the expense of consumers and businesses,” Winslow said.
The court’s ruling is likely to be to gain advantages for auto lenders, who have been fighting TCPA violations in recent years. In 2019, Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp. agreed to pay $2. 2 million to resolve an action of elegance by accusing the lender of violating TCPA.
Send us a letter
Do you have an opinion on this story? Click here to receive a letter for the editor and we can publish it in print.
Our Mission
(877) 812-1584
send us an email
RETURN TO HOME PAGE>
RETURN TO HOME PAGE>
RETURN TO HOME PAGE>
RETURN TO HOME PAGE>
RETURN TO HOME PAGE>
RETURN TO HOME PAGE>