The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) went into effect on January 1, 2020. Although enforcement cannot begin until July, private plaintiffs have started to bring claims under the law’s limited private right of action since the beginning of the year. Despite the CCPA going into effect just three months ago, it is already having an impact on litigation with two high profile cases alleging violations of the CCPA. This privacy quick tip aims to paint a broader picture of how the CCPA has been referenced in litigation and identify a few potential trends to watch.
As companies across all industries including consumer finance, prepare to face the widespread economic effects of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, ensuring access to liquidity during this time is a key strategy in addressing the challenges posed by COVID-19. This update provides guidance to companies evaluating whether and when to borrow on an existing line of credit.
California Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-28-20 (order) on March 16, 2020, to assist Californians experiencing financial hardship. The order implements measures specifically aimed at helping those that have lost their source of income due to business closures or layoffs in the wake of COVID-19. The governor’s directives focus on freezing evictions and foreclosures through May 31, 2020.
As the world reacts to the continued spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19), employers including mortgage lenders and servicers, are rightfully concerned about what, if anything, they should be doing to respond to this global health crisis in relation to their workforce. How companies respond to the COVID-19 pandemic may implicate several areas of employment law, including occupational health and safety regulations, anti-discrimination laws, immigration regulations, employee leave laws, and employee privacy considerations. In this article we explore the intersection between coronavirus and employment laws as well as provide suggestions on the practical steps employers can take in preparation for the outbreak’s potential impact.
On Friday the 13th of September 2019—the last day of California’s Legislative Session—California lawmakers updated, finalized and sent six bills that would amend the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) to Governor Newsom’s desk for signature. Despite months of efforts from various groups, the CCPA made it through the legislative session with relatively fewer changes than expected.
This update provides a brief overview of the six bills that made it out of both houses and how they will amend the CCPA. Read the full update here.
In Casillas v. Madison Avenue Associates, Inc., 926 F.3d 329, 333 (7th Cir. 2019), the Seventh Circuit upheld the district court’s holding that a plaintiff lacked standing to pursue a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) against a debt collector because the plaintiff could not establish that any damages were caused by the FDCPA violation.
The FDCPA requires a debt collector to give written notice to a consumer within five days of its initial communication. 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a). The notice must include, among other things, a description of two mechanisms that the debtor can use to verify his or her debt in writing. Id. The FDCPA also renders a debt collector liable for “fail[ing] to comply with any provision of [the Act].” Id. § 1692k(a). Continue Reading Seventh Circuit’s “No Harm, No Foul” Holding Requires Concrete Harm in Consumer Lending Cases
The CCPA exempts processing of personal information “pursuant to” the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA). Businesses must analyze their processing activities, including the types of personal information collected and how they are used, to determine which activities are conducted “pursuant to” the GLBA and which fall outside this limited scope and assess how to mitigate risk. Join us for a webinar that will explore the contours of this exemption and examines activities to which financial institutions might be subject to enforcement actions under the CCPA.
Date: Tuesday, July 16, 2019
Time: 1:00 p.m. PT | 3:00 p.m. CT | 4:00 p.m. ET
Register here for the entire series, or select the GLBA-specific webinar.
Beyond the Financial Services Modernization Act (also known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act), which generally provides that a financial institution may not disclose a customer’s nonpublic personal information unless it falls under one of the general exceptions of 15 U.S.C. § 6802(e) (e.g., consent of the customer or compliance with a properly authorized civil subpoena), the failure to domesticate a subpoena remains one of the most utilized arguments in motions to quash. Continue Reading Quashing Subpoenas for Borrower Records
Takeaway: The U.S. Supreme Court ever so slightly trimmed removal rules under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) last week in Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, No. 17-1471. In an opinion by Justice Thomas, the Court held that neither CAFA nor the general removal statute (28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)) permit removal by a third-party counterclaim defendant. That is, a party brought into the suit through a claim filed by the original defendant cannot remove the case to federal court. Read the full article on our sister blog, Consumer Protection Review.
The California Homeowner Bill of Rights (“HOBR”), codified in Sections 2920.5 et seq. of the Civil Code, became effective January 1, 2013. The statutes impose certain pre-foreclosure loss mitigation duties on mortgage servicers as well as trustees and deed of trust beneficiaries. Certain provisions of the HOBR were repealed as of January 1, 2018. While the legislature enacted new statutes to replace repealed provisions, not all requirements survived the January 2018 enactments, and expired as of the sunset date. But not long after expiration, many repealed provisions were given new life again through SB818 passed by Senator Beall. These statutes—revived with their original terms or with amendments—went into effect on January 1, 2019. We explore some of the repealed, later-revived statutes and notable appellate court decisions over the past year.