Jan 30, 2019 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making consumers aware that on January 28, 2019, a class action lawsuit was filed in United States District Court, Central District of California, against Navient Solutions, LLC “. . . for legal and equitable remedies resulting from the [alleged] illegal actions of Navient Solutions, LLC in transmitting unsolicited, autodialed SMS or MMS text messages, en masse, to Plaintiff’s cellular device and the cellular devices of numerous other individuals across the country, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (‘TCPA’).”
According to the class action complaint, “[f]or over at least the past year, continuing through the present, [Navient Solutions] transmitted or caused to be transmitted, by itself or through an intermediary or intermediaries, numerous SMS or MMS text messages [to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number] . . . without Plaintiff’s prior express written 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.
Jan 30, 2019 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making consumers aware that on January 28, 2019, a class action lawsuit was filed against AT&T Teleholdings, Inc. in United States District Court, Central District of California, “. . . seeking damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the [alleged] illegal actions of AT&T TELEHOLDINGS, INC. . . . in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff via ‘telephone facsimile machine’ in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47. U.S.C. § 227 et seq. (‘TCPA’), thereby causing Plaintiff and all others similarly situated to incur the costs of receiving unsolicited advertisement messages via ‘telephone facsimile machines’ and invading their privacy.”
Allegedly, AT&T Teleholdings sent an unsolicited fax to the Plaintiff “in an effort to solicit its customer’s business.” According to the complaint, “Plaintiff is not a customer of [AT&T Teleholdings’] services and has never provided any personal information, including his telephone facsimile number(s), to [AT&T Teleholdings] for any purpose whatsoever. Accordingly, [AT&T Teleholdings] never received Plaintiff’s ‘prior express consent’ to receive calls using a telephone facsimile machine pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)C).” Further, the messages Plaintiff received “lacked the ‘opt-out’ notice pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(2)(D).”
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.
Jan 23, 2019 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. Investigating Class-Action Claims on Behalf of Purchasers of the Now-Discontinued Dual-Ended Combat Arms™ Earplugs (CAEv2).
3M Company Agrees to Pay $9.1 Million to Resolve Allegations That it Supplied the United States With Defective Dual-Ended Combat Arms Earplugs
In July 2018, the Department of Justice announced that 3M “. . . agreed to pay $9.1 million to resolve allegations that it knowingly sold the dual-ended Combat Arms Earplugs, Version 2 (CAEv2) to the United States military without disclosing defects that hampered the effectiveness of the hearing protection device.” Further, the Department of Justice announced that
[t]he settlement . . . resolves allegations that 3M violated the False Claims Act by selling or causing to be sold defective earplugs to the Defense Logistics Agency. Specifically, the United States alleged that 3M, and its predecessor, Aearo Technologies, Inc., knew the CAEv2 was too short for proper insertion into users’ ears and that the earplugs could loosen imperceptibly and therefore did not perform well for certain individuals. The United States further alleged that 3M did not disclose this design defect to the military.
The allegations resolved by the settlement were brought in a lawsuit filed under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act. The act permits private parties to sue on behalf of the government when they believe that defendants submitted false claims for government funds and to share in any recovery. As part of [the] resolution, the whistleblower will receive $1,911,000. [Emphasis added]
Defective Earplugs Issued to Thousands of Military Service Members
In August 2018, IEN reported (“Competitor Blows Whistle on Defective Combat Gear”):
The earplugs in question are designed to provide normal hearing while protecting eardrums from gunfire and explosions that create a concussive sound. Over time, these are the damage-producing noises that lead to hearing loss and other health concerns.
The [Dual-Ended Combat Arms™ Earplugs (CAEv2)] were designed to be worn with either end placed inside the ear. One end allows for hearing speech and communicating, while the other end blocked all noise more completely.
The problem is that these earplugs, which were issued to thousands of military servicemen and woman deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq between 2003 and 2015, is that they can loosen while in the ear. The soldier wouldn’t notice, but this looser fit means potentially damaging sounds make their way into the ear. [Emphasis added]
Purchasers of Dual-Ended Combat Arms™ Earplugs, Version 2 (CAEv2)
If you purchased Dual-Ended Combat Arms™ Earplugs, Version 2 (CAEv2) and have questions or concerns about your potential legal rights, please contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., [email protected], [email protected], (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804.
Jan 4, 2019 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
On January 3, 2019, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) announced a settlement with USAA Federal Savings Bank, a federally chartered savings association headquartered in San Antonio, Texas.
As described in the consent order, the CFPB found that USAA violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E by failing to properly honor consumers’ stop payment requests on preauthorized electronic fund transfers, and by failing to initiate and complete reasonable error resolution investigations. USAA also violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 by reopening deposit accounts consumers had previously closed without seeking prior authorization or providing adequate notice.
Under the terms of the consent order USAA Federal Savings Bank must, among other provisions, provide approximately $12 million in restitution to certain consumers who were denied a reasonable error resolution investigation, in addition to paying a $3.5 million civil money penalty.
Source: CFPB
Dec 6, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
On December 6, 2018, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it issued the National Do Not Call Registry Data Book for Fiscal Year 2018. The FTC’s National Do Not Call Registry allows consumers to choose not to receive most legal telemarketing calls. The data, according to the FTC, show that the number of active registrations on the National Do Not Call Registry (“DNC Registry”) has increased significantly over the past year, while the total number of consumer complaints decreased for the first time in five years.
The National Do Not Call Registry Data Book (“Data Book”) contains substantial information about the DNC Registry for FY 2018 (October 1, 2017-September 30, 2018). The FTC’s Data Book provides the most recent information available on robocall complaints, the types of calls consumers reported to the FTC, and a complete state-by-state analysis.
FY 2018 Registration & Complaint Data
According to the FTC’s Data Book, at the end of FY 2018, the DNC Registry contained 235,302,818 actively registered phone numbers, up from 229,816,164 at the end of FY 2017. The number of consumer complaints about unwanted telemarketing calls significantly decreased, from 7,157,337 in FY 2017 to 5,780,172 in FY 2018.
According to the FTC, during the past fiscal year, the FTC has continued to receive many consumer complaints about telemarketing robocalls, but this number has also decreased. In FY 2018, the FTC received 3,790,614 complaints about robocalls, compared with 4,501,960 in FY 2017. For every month in the fiscal year, robocalls—defined under FTC regulations as calls delivering a prerecorded message—made up the majority of consumer complaints about DNC violations.
Reducing Debt, Medical/Prescriptions & Imposter Scams – Most Frequently Reported Robocall Complaint Topics
This year, according to the FTC, consumers most frequently reported robocalls about the following complaint topics: 1) reducing debt, 2) medical and prescriptions, and 3) imposter scams. While reducing debt remains the top robocall topic, robocalls about vacations and timeshares, and warranties and protection plans, dropped out of the top three complaint topics.
As it did last year, the FTC has developed a mini site on its website to make the information in the FY 2018 Data Book more accessible for the public, such as providing a webpage for each state. In addition, the data behind the report will be available in data files on the new website.
Additionally, to make it as user-friendly as possible, the FTC’s Data Book includes the following features:
- The number of DNC complaints about robocalls versus live callers.
- Information about the topics of calls reported to the FTC and gathered from the FTC’s online complaint form.
- A state-by-state analysis of DNC complaints.
- The underlying data in the report is publicly available at: www.ftc.gov/donotcall-databook2018.
Source: FTC.gov
Do You Believe You Are a Victim of Illegal Robocalls, Text Messages, “Junk” Faxes or Telemarketing Sales Calls?
Depending on the facts and circumstances of your case, 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.
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.
Dec 6, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
On December 6, 2018, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it is mailing 43,456 checks totaling more than $3.5 million to consumers subjected to deceptive and unfair sales and financing tactics by the Sage Auto Group and its owners between 2014 and 2016. Affected consumers will receive their checks soon, with the average refund amount totaling $81.76.
In September 2016, the FTC charged nine Los Angeles-area auto dealerships and their owners with using a wide range of deceptive and unfair sales and financing practices. The FTC’s action, filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, sought to end these practices and return money to consumers.
The action against the Sage Auto Group defendants was, according to the FTC, the FTC’s first to charge an auto dealer for “yo-yo” financing tactics: using deception or other unlawful pressure tactics to coerce consumers who have signed contracts into later accepting a different deal. The FTC also alleges that the defendants packed extra, unauthorized charges for “add-ons,” or aftermarket products and services, into car deals financed by consumers. In addition to barring the allegedly illegal conduct, the March 2017 order settling the FTC’s charges required the defendants to pay approximately $3.6 million for return to affected consumers.
Recipients, according to the FTC, should deposit or cash checks within 60 days, as indicated on the check. The FTC never requires consumers to pay money or provide account information to cash a refund check. Impacted consumers will receive a percentage of their total add-on costs for vehicles they bought.
Source: FTC.gov
