Nov 28, 2017 | Blog
FCC Allows Service Providers to Proactively Block Certain Types of Robocalls
The FCC adopted new rules on Nov. 16, 2017 that
. . . allow voice service providers to proactively block certain types of robocalls that are likely to be fraudulent because they come from certain types of phone numbers, including those that do not or cannot make outgoing calls. For example, perpetrators have used IRS phone numbers that don’t dial out to impersonate the tax agency, informing the people who answer that they are calling to collect money owed to the U.S. government. Such calls appear to be legitimate to those who receive them and can result in fraud or identity theft. Service providers now can block such calls, as well as calls from invalid numbers, like those with area codes that don’t exist, from numbers that have not been assigned to a provider, and from numbers allocated to a provider but not currently in use.
According to the FCC’s November 16, 2017 press release (which can be viewed by clicking FCC Adopts Rules Allowing Phone Companies To Proactively Block Illegal Robocalls):
Unwanted calls, including illegal robocalls, are the top consumer complaint at the FCC, with more than 200,000 received annually. Some private analyses estimate that U.S. consumers received approximately 2.4 billion robocalls per month in 2016. Advancements in technology make it cheap and easy to make robocalls and to “spoof” Caller ID information to hide the caller’s true identity.
To combat these scams, the new rules approved today expressly authorize voice service providers to block robocalls that appear to be from telephone numbers that do not or cannot make outgoing calls, without running afoul of the FCC’s call completion rules.
As a result of today’s action, voice service providers will be allowed to block calls purporting to be from a phone number placed on a “do not originate” list by the number’s subscriber. They will also be allowed to block calls purporting to be from invalid numbers, like those with area codes that don’t exist, from numbers that have not been assigned to a provider, and from numbers allocated to a provider but not currently in use.
To minimize blocking of lawful calls, [the FCC’s] Report and Order encourages voice service providers that elect to block calls to establish a simple way to identify and fix blocking errors. The rules also prohibit providers from blocking 911 emergency calls.
The FCC’s “Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,” describing the new rules authorizing call blocking of certain types of numbers that do not, or cannot make, outgoing calls, can be viewed by clicking FCC Report & Order_FCC 17-151.
Have You Received Unwanted, Unsolicited or Harassing Telephone, Telemarketing, Autodial or Robocalls and/or Text Messages?
If you have received unwanted, unsolicited or harassing telephone, telemarketing, autodial or robocalls and/or text messages and would like to speak privately with an attorney to learn more about your potential legal rights, please complete the form to the right or contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected]; John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected]; or send an e-mail to [email protected].
The Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to protecting investors and consumers from corporate fraud, negligence, and other wrongdoing. Driven by a strong and principled sense of social responsibility and obtaining justice for the aggrieved, Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. represents plaintiffs seeking to recover investment losses resulting from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, corporate wrongdoing or malfeasance, those harmed by anticompetitive practices, and consumers victimized by fraud, negligence, false claims, deception, data breaches or whose rights to minimum wage and overtime compensation under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and state wage and hour laws have been violated.
Nov 27, 2017 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Preliminary Approval Given to Class Action Settlement Resolving Wage and Hour Violation Allegations
On November 21, 2017, Law360 reported that
“[a] California federal judge preliminarily approved . . . Phillips 66’s $5.5 million settlement that would resolve a putative class action alleging the energy company violated wage and hour statutes shorting refinery operators’ pay, but she required the parties to refine the class notice so it’s easier to understand.”
A class-action complaint was filed in federal court against Phillips 66 in January 2017 by operators at Phillips 66’s California Refineries. According to the complaint, refinery “operators work a continuous rotating shift during which they are never fully relieved from duty” and
“[t]hroughout their shifts, Phillips 66 requires Plaintiffs and the other operators to monitor the refining process, respond to upsets and critical events, and maintain the safe and stable operation of their units. In order to do so, Plaintiffs and the other operators are required to remain attentive, carry radios, and be reachable at all times during their shifts. Plaintiffs are also required to remain in contact with supervisors and other employees working in their unit throughout their shifts. As a result, Plaintiffs never receive off-duty breaks because they are constantly and continuously responsible for their units.”
The complaint also alleged that “[b]ecause operators are responsible for their units throughout their shifts, with no designated rest breaks or relief, Phillips 66 does not authorize or permit Plaintiffs to take off-duty rest breaks for every four-hour work period or major fraction thereof, as required by law.”
Additionally, according to the complaint, “Phillips 66 does not have a policy or system for providing relief to Plaintiffs to allow them to take off-duty rest breaks”; “Phillips 66 does not pay Plaintiffs an extra hour of wages for each work day during which they are not provided the off-duty rest breaks to which they are entitled under California law”; and “Phillips 66 also routinely fails to maintain complete and accurate payroll records for Plaintiffs showing, inter alia, the gross and net wages earned, including wages for missed rest breaks.”
A copy of the initial complaint, filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of California, can be viewed by clicking Buzas, et al v. Phillips 66 Company.
Law360 also reported that
[s]ince the suit was filed, the parties struck a deal under which class counsel will receive up to 25 percent of the common fund, or $1.375 million, in fees and up to $40,000 for costs. Meanwhile, the three lead plaintiffs would each receive a $7,500 incentive award and the company will make a $37,000 payment to the state to resolve PAGA claims. On average, the approximately 530 class members will receive $5,500, depending on the number of shifts they had, according to court documents.
The Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to protecting investors and consumers from corporate fraud, negligence, and other wrongdoing. Driven by a strong and principled sense of social responsibility and obtaining justice for the aggrieved, Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. represents plaintiffs seeking to recover investment losses resulting from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, corporate wrongdoing or malfeasance, those harmed by anticompetitive practices, and consumers victimized by fraud, negligence, false claims, deception, data breaches or whose rights to minimum wage and overtime compensation under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and state wage and hour laws have been violated.
Nov 27, 2017 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Volkswagen’s Attempt to Dismiss Lawsuit Ruled Moot With Filing of Amended Complaint
On November 22, 2017, Law360 reported that
[a] Florida federal judge . . . denied Volkswagen’s bid to toss a lawsuit over an alleged suspension defect in its CC sedans, finding the motion moot after the proposed class of drivers who launched the suit filed a new complaint the day before that added a number of new claims.
The 161-page amended complaint against Volkswagen Group of America Inc. and its parent, Volkswagen AG, is more than double the length of the drivers’ original complaint against the automaker in August. It includes six new named plaintiffs, adds 13 new state subclasses, expands the time period covered by the proposed class back to 2009, and brings six new sets of state law claims plus some new federal law claims.
The new complaint maintains allegations that the CC sedans have a defective suspension system that can’t be readjusted when the tires naturally creep out of alignment, causing the tires to quickly and unevenly wear down, an effect described as “cupping” or “feathering.” Despite allegedly knowing about the problem, Volkswagen ignored it and told dealerships and repair shops to simply replace the vehicles’ tires, which quickly wore down again, the drivers said.
The amended complaint against Volkswagen, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, can be viewed by clicking Wilson, et al v. Volkswagen Group of America, et al
Law360 also reported that
[t]he 15 named plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of people who owned or leased Volkswagen CCs from 2009 to the present, expanding the scope of the proposed class three years, as the original complaint covered 2012 to the present. They also seek to represent subclasses of drivers from 14 states: Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah and Virginia, whereas the original complaint only described a Florida subclass.
The Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to protecting investors and consumers from corporate fraud, negligence, and other wrongdoing. Driven by a strong and principled sense of social responsibility and obtaining justice for the aggrieved, Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. represents plaintiffs seeking to recover investment losses resulting from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, corporate wrongdoing or malfeasance, those harmed by anticompetitive practices, and consumers victimized by fraud, negligence, false claims, deception, data breaches or whose rights to minimum wage and overtime compensation under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and state wage and hour laws have been violated.
Nov 27, 2017 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Uber – Uber Allegedly Paid Hackers To Delete Stolen Data
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating claims related to a massive data breach of sensitive personal information from transportation company Uber.
According to The New York Times:
Uber disclosed . . . that hackers had stolen 57 million driver and rider accounts and that the company had kept the data breach secret for more than a year after paying a $100,000 ransom.
The deal was arranged by the company’s chief security officer and under the watch of the former chief executive, Travis Kalanick, according to several current and former employees who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the details were private.
The security officer, Joe Sullivan, has been fired. Mr. Kalanick was forced out in June, although he remains on Uber’s board.
The two hackers stole data about the company’s riders and drivers — including phone numbers, email addresses and names — from a third-party server and then approached Uber and demanded $100,000 to delete their copy of the data, the employees said.
Uber acquiesced to the demands, and then went further. The company tracked down the hackers and pushed them to sign nondisclosure agreements, according to the people familiar with the matter. To further conceal the damage, Uber executives also made it appear as if the payout had been part of a “bug bounty” — a common practice among technology companies in which they pay hackers to attack their software to test for soft spots.
Uber – Data Hack Details Remained Hidden
According to The New York Times, the details of the attack remained hidden until Tuesday. The ride-hailing company said it had discovered the breach as part of a board investigation into Uber’s business practices.
Uber Has Experienced Other Data Breaches
The New York Times also reported that Uber has experienced breaches before. The company was hit with a data breach in May 2014, an event Uber discovered later that year and disclosed in February 2015. In that attack, the names and driver’s licenses of more than 50,000 of the company’s drivers were compromised. Further, The New York Times reported:
While it is not illegal to pay money to hackers, Uber may have violated several laws in its interaction with them.
By demanding that the hackers destroy the stolen data, Uber may have violated a Federal Trade Commission rule on breach disclosure that prohibits companies from destroying any forensic evidence in the course of their investigation.
The company may have also violated state breach disclosure laws by not disclosing the theft of Uber drivers’ stolen data. If the data stolen was not encrypted, Uber would have been required by California state law to disclose that driver’s license data from its drivers had been stolen in the course of the hacking.
What Can Individuals Do If They Believe Their Personal Information Has Been Compromised?
If you believe your personal information may have been exposed or compromised due to the Uber data breach, please complete the form to the right or contact either John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected]; Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected]; or send an e-mail to [email protected].
The Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to protecting investors and consumers from corporate fraud, negligence, and other wrongdoing. Driven by a strong and principled sense of social responsibility and obtaining justice for the aggrieved, Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. represents plaintiffs seeking to recover investment losses resulting from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, corporate wrongdoing or malfeasance, those harmed by anticompetitive practices, and consumers victimized by fraud, negligence, false claims, deception, data breaches or whose rights to minimum wage and overtime compensation under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and state wage and hour laws have been violated.
Nov 21, 2017 | Blog
According to the FCC:
. . . on August 2, 2016, the FCC adopted rules to implement amendments to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) that exempt some robocalls—including autodialed text messages made to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States—from certain TCPA requirements. The statutory amendments that the FCC’s rules implement state that prior express consent is no longer needed when sending autodialed text messages or making autodialed, prerecorded voice, and artificial voice calls to a wireless number to collect a federal debt. Pursuant to the amendments, the FCC rules restrict, among other things, the number, duration and recipient of such robocalls, and they provide specifically that recipients can opt out of further calls. The FCC’s decision is available at: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-99A1.pdf
Further, the FTC’s update stated:
Federal debt collection robocalls (which may be an autodialed call, a prerecorded-voice call, an artificial-voice call, or a text message sent using an autodialer) may be made to a wireless number without the recipient’s prior express consent but only under certain conditions.
Who May Be Robocalled?
- Federal debt collectors and their agents and contractors may only make calls to debtors or other persons legally responsible for paying the debt, but not, for example, to friends, family, or persons referenced in debt paperwork.
Is Telemarketing Allowed?
- Robocalls are only permitted for purposes of collecting the federal debt and not for marketing or other unrelated purposes.
When May Federal Debt Collectors Place a Robocall?
- These calls may only be made: 1) while the debt is delinquent; or 2) in the case of certain debt servicing calls, subject to strict limits, following a “specific, time-sensitive event” and in the 30 days before such an event that affects the amount or timing of payments due (e.g., end of a deferment period or a recertification deadline).
Which Numbers May Be Called?
- Federal debt collectors may only make these calls to wireless telephone numbers that: 1) the debtor provided at the time the debt was incurred; 2) were subsequently provided by the debtor to the owner of the debt or the owner’s contractor; or 3) were obtained from an independent source by the federal debt collector so long as the number actually belongs to the debtor.
How Many Calls? What Time of Day?
- Consumers may be robocalled no more than three times within a 30-day period by each servicer or collector per type of loan. Calls need not be completed to count toward the three-call limit.
- Calls may only be placed between 8 am and 9 pm local time at the debtor’s location.
What About Opt-Out and Disclosure Requirements?
- Debtors have a right to opt out from receiving federal debt collection robocalls and robotexts at any time by any reasonable means (e.g., verbally, in writing, or by reply text).
- Federal debt collection robocalls and robotexts must disclose the debtor’s “stop-call” rights and include opt-out instructions.
What is the Limit on Call Length?
- Artificial-voice and prerecorded-voice calls are limited to 60 seconds in duration (not including required disclosures).
- Autodialed texts are limited to one text message of 160 characters. (Required disclosures may be sent separately.)
What is the Interplay with the TCPA and Other FCC Implementing Rules?
- All other provisions of the TCPA and the FCC’s implementing rules regarding autodialed and prerecorded calls still apply.
Have You Received Unwanted, Unsolicited or Harassing Telephone, Telemarketing, Autodial or Robocalls and/or Text Messages?
If you have received unwanted, unsolicited or harassing telephone, telemarketing, autodial or robocalls and/or text messages and would like to speak privately with an attorney to learn more about your potential legal rights, please complete the form to the right or contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected]; John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected]; or send an e-mail to [email protected].
The Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to protecting investors and consumers from corporate fraud, negligence, and other wrongdoing. Driven by a strong and principled sense of social responsibility and obtaining justice for the aggrieved, Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. represents plaintiffs seeking to recover investment losses resulting from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, corporate wrongdoing or malfeasance, those harmed by anticompetitive practices, and consumers victimized by fraud, negligence, false claims, deception, data breaches or whose rights to minimum wage and overtime compensation under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and state wage and hour laws have been violated.
