May 17, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Equifax Information Services, LLC Subject of Class Action Alleging Equifax Does Not Follow Reasonable Procedures to Ensure the Timely Gathering and Reporting of Updated Public Record Information, Such as the Release, Satisfaction or Removal of Tax Liens or Judgments, in Consumer Reports
On May 14, 2018, Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. and co-counsel filed a class action lawsuit in Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, Trial Division, against Equifax seeking, among other things, statutory and punitive damages, for Equifax’s alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), as a result of Equifax’s reckless disregard for consumer’s rights by failing to adopt reasonable procedures to timely gather and report updated public record information reflecting the disposition, or satisfaction, of such things as tax liens and judgments. As a result of its conduct, the complaint alleges that the Pennsylvania-based Plaintiff and putative class members suffered reputational harm, reduced credit scores, and an increased risk of being denied credit.
Equifax’s Failure to Timely Gather Updated Information Regarding Derogatory Information in Credit Reports
According to the complaint:
Equifax is a consumer reporting agency that compiles and maintains files on consumers on a nationwide basis. As part of this process, Equifax uses an automated and systematic procedure to gather and report derogatory public records in credit reports, such as tax liens and judgments. However, Equifax does not follow similar procedures to gather updated information about when the tax lien or judgment is released, satisfied, vacated or otherwise removed. Equifax’s failure to timely gather updated information is a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) because Equifax has not implemented reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy in the preparation of the consumer reports that it furnished regarding Plaintiff and the putative class members. (Emphasis added)
Despite no affirmative requirement in the FCRA, Equifax proactively seeks out and purchases public records data, including Pennsylvania tax liens and civil judgments, to include in the credit reports it sells. Equifax, however, “does not follow reasonable procedures to gather information when the tax liens or judgments are released, satisfied, vacated, appealed, or similarly dismissed, with the same rigor and process that it employs to gather information initially.”
Allegedly, the third-party vendor Equifax engages to collect judgment and tax lien information “was only obligated to collect and provide updates and dispositions if the vendor determined it was ‘commercially reasonable’ to do so.” Further, according to the complaint:
As a matter of common policy, Equifax and its vendors rarely collect any tax lien or judgment disposition information.
In short, Equifax published public records data that it knew would be inaccurate if a release, satisfaction, dismissal, vacatur or appeal had occurred—relying on consumers to clean up their own files via the dispute process after learning of the inaccuracy, rather than paying to have these dispositions collected with the same vigor that it collected records of the initial entry of judgment. (Emphasis added)
The Pennsylvania Plaintiff’s Equifax Experience
On or about January 4, 2013, a Pennsylvania state tax lien was filed against the Plaintiff. In March 2016, the Plaintiff sent payment in full to the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue, and the lien was satisfied in March 2016. In August 2016, a copy of the lien release was filed. In February 2017, a copy of the Plaintiff’s Equifax report was pulled by Quicken Loans. The Equifax report incorrectly reflected that the Plaintiff’s lien was unpaid and not satisfied.
Despite the fact that the tax lien was satisfied and reflected as such on Pennsylvania public records, Equifax did not remove the tax lien public record from the Plaintiff’s credit report or update the credit report to show the lien as satisfied, released or paid. If the company followed the FCRA, which requires a consumer reporting agency to follow reasonable procedures “to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates,” Equifax would have conducted a simple, free online public records search and reported an update to the public record reflecting that the Plaintiff’s lien was satisfied.
Consumers: Does Your Consumer Report Contain a Tax Lien or Other Civil Judgment Error?
If your consumer report from Experian, TransUnion or Equifax reflects a satisfied tax lien or other civil judgment as unpaid, not satisfied or not released, please contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. by completing the form above on the right, sending an e-mail to [email protected] or by contacting Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], to discuss your potential legal rights.
May 10, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making consumers aware that on May 7, 2018, a class action complaint was filed against Spreemo, Inc. and The Hartford Financial Services Group for allegedly sending at least one advertisement by facsimile to Plaintiff in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). The fax advertisement, according to the complaint, was sent to Plaintiff without his prior express consent to receive an advertisement via fax from the Defendants. Further, the Plaintiff, allegedly, did not have an established business relationship with Spreemo and The Hartford Financial Services Group.
According to the class action complaint, Spreemo, “a healthcare platform or vendor that connects patients and their insurers with diagnostic testing providers,” and The Hartford Financial Services Group, “an insurance company providing employee benefits, among other insurance products,” “sent advertisements by facsimile to Plaintiff and more than 39 persons in violation of the TCPA.” The faxed advertisements promoted “Spreemo’s services locating and recommending radiological imaging providers for The Hartford patients.”
The TCPA class action, filed on behalf of a class of all persons or entities which received one or more fax messages “promoting Spreemo’s services locating and recommending radiological imaging providers for The Hartford patients,” seeks, among other things, statutory damages and injunctive relief. The lawsuit was filed in United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania (5:18-cv-01902-LS), and a copy of the one-page “Spreemo Health”-related fax received by Plaintiff and listed as an exhibit in the complaint can be viewed by clicking here.
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 TCPA.
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.
May 2, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Antitrust Class Action – Alleged Unlawful Conspiracy to Suppress Employee Compensation
On May 1, 2018, Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. and other co-counsel filed a class action complaint in United States District Court for the District of Maryland under the antitrust laws of the United States against Defendants Knorr-Bremse AG, Knorr Brake Company LLC, New York Air Brake LLC (collectively, “Knorr”), Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation (“Wabtec”), Wabtec Passenger Transit, a business unit of Wabtec, Wabtec Railway Electronics, a business unit of Wabtec, Faiveley Transport, S.A., a subsidiary of Wabtec, and Faiveley Transport North America, Inc., a subsidiary of Wabtec, based on Defendants’ and unnamed co-conspirators’ unlawful conspiracy to suppress Plaintiff’s and Class members’ compensation.
The class action seeks to recover damages for the lost compensation, including treble damages and other appropriate relief. Please click here to review a copy of the filed class action complaint.
WERE YOU PAID FOR PERSONAL SERVICES BY KNORR-BREMSE AG, KNORR BRAKE COMPANY, NEW YORK AIR BRAKE, WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION (“WABTEC”), WABTEC PASSENGER TRANSIT, WABTEC RAILWAY ELECTRONICS, FAIVELEY TRANSPORT, S.A., FAIVELEY TRANSPORT NORTH AMERICA OR ANY WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF ANY DEFENDANT, INCLUDING DEFENDANTS’ EMPLOYEES OR CONTRACTORS AT ANY TIME BETWEEN 2009 AND THE PRESENT?
If so, then you may have a claim for compensation arising from the anticompetitive conduct. Please contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. to discuss your potential legal claims. If you wish to discuss your concerns privately with an attorney, please contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected].
The federal antitrust class action was brought by and on behalf of individuals who have performed work for Defendants, who are some of the world’s largest rail equipment suppliers and subsidiaries or business units thereof. Rail equipment personnel, like personnel in any labor market, benefit when their employers compete for their services. Competition in the labor market creates leverage for personnel, which, in turn, leads to higher wages and greater mobility.
Allegedly, from 2009 to the present, Defendants, along with other unnamed individuals and entities acting as co-conspirators, conspired not to recruit, solicit, or hire without prior approval each other’s personnel (the “No-Poach Conspiracy” or “Conspiracy”). The No-Poach Conspiracy, which is a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, limited the Plaintiff’s and Class members’ job mobility and, in turn, suppressed their compensation below the levels that would have been available absent the Conspiracy.
On April 3, 2018, Defendants Knorr and Wabtec announced their agreement to settle charges brought by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), after the DOJ’s lengthy investigation of the No-Poach Conspiracy. The DOJ found that Defendants’ agreements that formed the No-Poach Conspiracy were per se violations of the Sherman Act. The DOJ stated these agreements “were facially anticompetitive because they eliminated a significant form of competition to attract skilled labor in the U.S. rail industry.” Specifically, the DOJ said further that “these agreements denied employees access to better job opportunities, restricted their mobility, and deprived them of competitively significant information that they could have used to negotiate for better terms of employment.”
Although the DOJ and Defendants have reached a settlement, pursuant to which Defendants have agreed to certain ongoing conduct remedies, the DOJ settlement does not provide relief for those who were injured by the No-Poach Conspiracy. Without this class action, Plaintiff and the Class will not receive compensation for their injuries, and Defendants will continue to retain the benefits of their unlawful collusion.
The Proposed Knorr, New York Air Brake, Wabtec, Faiveley Transport Antitrust Class
The proposed antitrust action Class consists of all natural persons who were paid for personal services by any of the Defendants, or by any wholly-owned subsidiary of any Defendant, including Defendants’ employees or contractors, at any time from January 1, 2009, to the present. Excluded from the Class are senior executives and personnel in the human resources and recruiting departments of the Defendants and their wholly owned subsidiaries, as well as personnel hired outside of the United States to work outside of the United States.
May 2, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making consumers aware that on April 25, 2018, a class action complaint was filed against Credit One Bank, N.A. violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for contacting the Plaintiff without his prior express consent on his cellular telephone to collect an alleged debt owed by the Plaintiff to Credit One Bank.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff began receiving numerous telephone calls in November 2017 regarding the collection of a supposed debt the Plaintiff owed to Credit One Bank. According to the complaint, “. . . in or around October of 2017, Defendant sold the alleged debt to a third party. However, [Capital One Bank] continued to contact Plaintiff in an attempt to collect upon the alleged debt.” Although the Plaintiff requested that Capital One Bank stop calling him, the calls, allegedly, continued.
The complaint states that the Plaintiff was contacted by the following telephone numbers, which belonged to Capital One Bank: (909) 334-4496; (909) 334-4526; (909) 557-9991; (909) 334-4526; (909) 479-3367; (909) 479-3357; (909) 557-9989; (909) 557-9990; (909) 479-3347; (909) 479-2480; (704) 496-5354; and (866) 910-7740.
The class action complaint, filed in United States District Court, Central District of California (8:18-cv-00703), seeks, among other relief, statutory damages.
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.
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.
May 1, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making consumers aware that on April 27, 2018, a class action complaint seeking damages and injunctive relief was filed against Liberty Student Loan Forgiveness, a company which “offers loan consolidation services and repayment programs,” for the alleged “illegal actions of Liberty Student Loan Forgiveness . . . in negligently or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act . . ..”
The Plaintiff, according to the complaint, had no preexisting relationship with Liberty Student Loan Forgiveness and never requested that the company review his student loans, provide the Plaintiff repayment programs or calculate consolidated payments. Despite neither a prior existing relationship nor the Plaintiff’s express consent to receive marketing phone calls, the Plaintiff received an “unwelcomed automated impersonal voicemail from phone number (800) 218-0839 on his cellular telephone” stating: “‘You’re prequalified for the federal student loan forgiveness program. Please call us back at (800) 549-6685 to discuss your repayment options or press one to be connected to a live representative. Press two if you would like to be removed.’”
Liberty Student Loan Forgiveness, allegedly, as part of its consumer solicitation efforts, “calls consumers advising them that ‘they prequalified for the federal student loan forgiveness program.’” Further, according to the complaint, the Defendant’s “voicemail is meant to deceive consumers into believing that they have dealings with Defendant or Defendant is currently servicing consumers’ student loans.” The class action complaint was filed in United States District Court, Central District of California (8:18-cv-00732).
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.
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.
Apr 4, 2018 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Data Leak Lasted At Least Eight Months – Panera Was Warned About the Problem Last August
On April 3, 2018, Bankinfosecurity.com reported:
Panera Bread acknowledged a data leak on Monday, but says fewer than 10,000 customers were affected. The leak appears to have persisted for at least eight months, despite the company having been warned about the problem last August. And the exposed database appears to have included information on more than 7 million customers, meaning the breach could be much larger than Panera Bread claims.
Information security blogger Brian Krebs reported that the leak’s finder, security researcher Dylan Houlihan, recently alerted him to the problem. Krebs writes that after he contacted Panera Bread with an inquiry, the company briefly took its website offline, apparently to attempt to fix the problem.
The leaked data appears to include a raft of information, including names, usernames, email addresses, phone numbers and the last four digits of payment card numbers. The data, which comprises people who ordered online from the food chain, was visible in plain text.
According to Krebsonsecurity.com:
The data available in plain text from Panera’s site appeared to include records for any customer who has signed up for an account to order food online via panerabread.com. The St. Louis-based company, which has more than 2,100 retail locations in the United States and Canada, allows customers to order food online for pickup in stores or for delivery.
Source: Krebsonsecurity.com, “Panerabread.com Leaks Millions of Customer Records”
KrebsOnSecurity learned about the breach earlier today after being contacted by security researcher Dylan Houlihan, who said he initially notified Panera about customer data leaking from its Web site back on August 2, 2017.
Further, according to Bankinfosecurity.com:
. . . the researcher who discovered the problem, along with Krebs, believes – despite Panera Bread publicly reporting that the leak has been fixed – that the data was still available for some length of time afterward. Krebs tweeted later on Monday that he found API issues on other subdomains within Panera Bread’s website.
Panera Bread appeared to take its site completely . . . offline later on Monday.
Dylan Houlihan reported that
. . . [i]n August 2017, I reported a vulnerability to Panera Bread that allowed the full name, home address, email address, food/dietary preferences, username, phone number, birthday and last four digits of a saved credit card to be accessed in bulk for any user that had ever signed up for an account. This includes my own personal data! Despite an explicit acknowledgement of the issue and a promise to fix it, Panera Bread sat on the vulnerability and, as far as I can tell, did nothing about it for eight months. When Brian Krebs publicly broke the news, other news outlets emphasized the usual “We take your security very seriously, security is a top priority for us” prepared statement from Panera Bread. Worse still, the vulnerability was not fixed at all — which means the company either misrepresented its actual security posture to the media to save face or was not competent enough to determine this fact for themselves. This post establishes a canonical timeline so subsequent reporting doesn’t get confused. (Emphasis added)
The Verge reported:
Panera Bread issued a statement to Fox News this week saying it resolved a data breach that exposed the personal information of “thousands” of customer records. However, according to KrebsOnSecurity, the company was first alerted to the issue by security researcher Dylan Houlihan eight months ago but initially dismissed it as a likely scam.
. . .
KrebsOnSecurity says Houlihan contacted Panera on August 2nd, 2017, and then again to follow up a week later. A shared a message thread between Houlihan and Mike Gustavison, Panera’s director of information security, shows that Panera did eventually validate Houlihan’s findings, saying the company was working on a fix. However, as of yesterday, the website was still leaking data. Houlihan says the flaw continued to exist, and he “check[ed] on it every month or so because I was pissed.”
KrebsOnSecurity spoke with Panera’s chief information officer John Meister yesterday and the company briefly took the website offline. It has since returned, and the data is no longer reachable. However, the company had no comment as to why it allowed the problem to exist for months after it acknowledged it was an issue last August. KrebsOnSecurity says the number of accounts affected may be as high as 37 million, despite Panera disputing that only 10,000 records were exposed.
