Nov 20, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making consumers aware that a class action lawsuit was filed against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) on November 19, 2018 in United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, “for damages and other equitable and legal remedies from [Wells Fargo’s alleged] violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.” Allegedly, “Wells Fargo has repeatedly called Plaintiff[‘s] . . . cellular phone concerning a mortgage loan that does not belong to [Plaintiff]. Wells Fargo used an automatic telephone dialing system . . . and an artificial or prerecorded voice to make these calls.”
The class action complaint alleges that the Plaintiff
. . . has never had a customer or borrower relationship with Wells Fargo and has never consented to receive calls from Wells Fargo. Plaintiff informed Wells Fargo that it has the wrong number when it called [Plaintiff], and [Plaintiff] has asked Wells Fargo to stop calling her. Wells Fargo, nevertheless, continues to make calls to her without her consent.
Additionally, according to the complaint, the calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone occurred “repeatedly over the course of the past two years,” “pertain to a mortgage loan,” and “were intended for a man whom Plaintiff does not know and has never met.” The “Plaintiff did not provide her cellular telephone number to Wells Fargo and never provided express consent for Wells Fargo to call her about someone else’s mortgage or any other subject matter.”
The class action complaint defined the class as follows:
Each person within the United States who, on or after March 1, 2016, (1) received a non-emergency call to his or her cellular telephone; (2) from Wells Fargo; (3) through the use of an ATDS [Automatic Telephone Dialing System] and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice; (4) in connection with an existing or prospective Wells Fargo mortgage loan product; and (5) who did not have an existing customer relationship at the time of the calls or had a past relationship but had expressly withdrawn consent to be contacted by such means.
Do You Believe You Are a Victim of Illegal Robocalls, Text Messages, “Junk” Faxes or Telemarketing Sales Calls?
If you have received illegal robocalls, text messages, “junk” faxes or telemarketing sales calls, you may be able to recover at least $500 for each illegal call, text or fax you received and, possibly, as much as $1,500 for each illegal call, text message or facsimile that was made either willfully or knowingly in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
To help evaluate your potential legal claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, please complete KLF’s confidential Robocall Questionnaire or, if you prefer to speak with an attorney, please complete the form above on the right, e-mail [email protected] or contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., [email protected], (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, for a free, no-obligation evaluation of your potential legal rights.
Nov 19, 2018 | Antitrust
FTC Commissioners Find 1-800 Contacts Unlawfully Harmed Competition in Online Search Advertising Auctions, Restricting the Availability of Truthful Advertising to Consumers
On November 14, 2018, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it held that 1-800 Contacts, the nation’s largest online retailer of contact lenses, unlawfully entered into a web of anticompetitive agreements with rival online contact lens sellers.
A Commission Opinion, authored by Chairman Joseph J. Simons, ruled that the agreements between 1-800 Contacts and fourteen online sellers of contact lenses constitute unfair methods of competition, in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. The agreements prevent online contact lens retailers from bidding for search engine result ads that would inform consumers that identical products are available at lower prices. The FTC Opinion held that the agreements harm competition in bidding for search engine key words, artificially reducing the prices that 1-800 Contacts pays, as well as the quality of search engine results delivered to consumers. According to the FTC, although the Opinion directly addresses restraints to search engine advertising for contact lenses, it carries broader implications for preserving competition through online advertising.
The FTC’s Order requires 1-800 Contacts to cease and desist from enforcing the unlawful provisions in its existing agreements and from entering into similar agreements in the future. It prohibits 1-800 Contacts from agreeing with other contact lens retailers to restrict search advertising or to limit participation in search advertising auctions.
The FTC’s Opinion stems from an August 2016 administrative complaint. It upholds Chief Administrative Law Judge D. Michael Chappell’s October 2017 Initial Decision, which similarly found that the agreements were unfair methods of competition.
The FTC vote approving the Opinion and Final Order was 3-1-1, with Commissioner Noah Joshua Phillips dissenting and Commissioner Christine S. Wilson not participating.
Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter issued a concurring statement. Commissioner Phillips issued a dissenting statement.
According to the FTC, 1-800 Contacts may file a petition for review of the FTC Opinion and Final Order with a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals within 60 days after service of the Final Order.
Source: FTC.gov
Nov 14, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making consumers aware that on November 12, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed against AIG Direct Insurance Services, Inc. (“AIG Direct Insurance”) and other defendants, as of yet unknown, in United States District Court, Eastern District of California, “. . . seeking damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of [AIG Direct Insurance] . . . in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47. U.S.C. § 227 et seq. (“TCPA”) and related regulations, thereby invading Plaintiff’s privacy and causing him to incur unnecessary and unwanted expenses.”
According to the class action complaint, AIG Direct Insurance began contacting the Plaintiff in approximately July 2018 on the Plaintiff’s cellular telephone “in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase Defendant’s services.” AIG Direct Insurance “contacted or attempted to contact Plaintiff from telephone number (858) 309-3000, confirmed to belong to [AIG Direct Insurance].” Further, AIG Direct Insurance, allegedly, “placed multiple calls soliciting its business to Plaintiff on his cellular telephone” without having a prior relationship with Plaintiff or his “prior express consent.”
Do You Believe You Are a Victim of Illegal Robocalls, Text Messages, “Junk” Faxes or Telemarketing Sales Calls?
If you have received illegal robocalls, text messages, “junk” faxes or telemarketing sales calls, you may be able to recover at least $500 for each illegal call, text or fax you received and, possibly, as much as $1,500 for each illegal call, text message or facsimile that was made either willfully or knowingly in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
To help evaluate your potential legal claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, please complete KLF’s confidential Robocall Questionnaire or, if you prefer to speak with an attorney, please complete the form above on the right, e-mail [email protected] or contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., [email protected], (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, for a free, no-obligation evaluation of your potential legal rights.
Nov 9, 2018 | Shareholder & Investor Protection
On November 8, 2018, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) announced that it issued an Order filing and simultaneously settling charges against Commerzbank AG (Commerzbank) for numerous violations of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) and CFTC Regulations, including failing to supervise its Swap Dealer’s activities for more than 5 years and making misleading statements and material omissions to the CFTC concerning its Swap Dealer’s operations and compliance with the CEA and CFTC Regulations. Commerzbank AG is a global banking and financial services company based in Frankfurt, Germany, that has been provisionally registered with the CFTC as a Swap Dealer since December 31, 2012.
The CFTC Order requires Commerzbank to pay a $12 million civil monetary penalty and comply with specified undertakings including retention of an outside consultant to review swap dealer compliance for a period of two years and to generate, during that period, annual reports assessing the swap dealer’s compliance with the CEA and CFTC Regulations. The Order further requires Commerzbank to submit annual reports to the CFTC regarding swap dealer compliance and remedial efforts for a period of two years.
According to the Order, Commerzbank management failed to supervise its Swap Dealer’s activities from December 31, 2012 until at least 2018. The Order found that Commerzbank’s failure to supervise its Swap Dealer was systemic and directly resulted in thousands of violations of other provisions of the CEA and CFTC Regulations. In particular, the Order found that Commerzbank failed to adopt any effective process for determining whether swap transactions with certain non-U.S. swap counterparties were subject to the requirements of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, in violation of Regulation 23.402(b); failed to report swap transactions to swap data repositories (“SDRs”) in violation of Section 2(a)(13)(G) of the CEA and Regulations 43.3 and 45.3; failed to submit Large Trader Reports (LTRs) consistent with the CFTC’s requirements in violation of Section 4s(f)(1)(A) of the CEA and Regulations 20.4 and 20.7; and failed to execute certain swaps on swap execution facilities (“SEFs”) in violation of Section 2(h)(8) of the CEA and Regulation 37.9(a)(2).
Additionally, the CFTC Order found that Commerzbank made misleading statements and material omissions in its 2014 and 2015 annual Chief Compliance Officer reports to the CFTC, in violation of Section 6(c)(2) of the CEA. In these Chief Compliance Officer reports, Commerzbank failed to adequately disclose numerous deficiencies in its systems and controls for swap dealer compliance and made misleading statements and material omissions regarding the Swap Dealer’s compliance with the CEA and Regulations.
Source: CFTC.gov
Nov 8, 2018 | Shareholder & Investor Protection
On November 8, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced settled charges against Zachary Coburn (“Coburn”), the founder of EtherDelta, a digital “token” trading platform. This is the SEC’s first enforcement action based on findings that such a platform operated as an unregistered national securities exchange.
According to the SEC’s order, EtherDelta is an online platform for secondary market trading of ERC20 tokens, a type of blockchain-based token commonly issued in Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs). The order found that Coburn caused EtherDelta to operate as an unregistered national securities exchange.
EtherDelta provided a marketplace for bringing together buyers and sellers for digital asset securities through the combined use of an order book, a website that displayed orders, and a “smart contract” run on the Ethereum blockchain. EtherDelta’s smart contract was coded to validate the order messages, confirm the terms and conditions of orders, execute paired orders, and direct the distributed ledger to be updated to reflect a trade.
Over an 18-month period, EtherDelta’s users, according to the SEC, executed more than 3.6 million orders for ERC20 tokens, including tokens that are securities under the federal securities laws. Almost all of the orders placed through EtherDelta’s platform were traded after the SEC issued its 2017 DAO Report, which concluded that certain digital assets, such as DAO tokens, were securities and that platforms that offered trading of these digital asset securities would be subject to the SEC’s requirement that exchanges register or operate pursuant to an exemption. EtherDelta offered trading of various digital asset securities and failed to register as an exchange or operate pursuant to an exemption.
The SEC has previously brought enforcement actions relating to unregistered broker-dealers and unregistered ICOs, including some of the tokens traded on EtherDelta.
Without admitting or denying the findings, Coburn consented to the order and agreed to pay $300,000 in disgorgement plus $13,000 in prejudgment interest and a $75,000 penalty. The SEC’s order recognizes Coburn’s cooperation, which the SEC considered in determining not to impose a greater penalty.
Source: SEC.gov
