Legal Briefs

How to Avoid Being Sued by a Professional TCPA Plaintiff

July 13, 2018
Article by:
Michael O'Hare Blindbid
Michael O’Hare, CEO, Blindbid

Did you know that if you receive an unwanted solicitation call on your private cell phone or residential landline, you can win between $500 and $1,500 in damages from the offending company? The company can be charged for violating a statute of the 1991 Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which prohibits companies from calling consumers without their express permission. You might not know about this, but others know about it all too well.

Some people use this TCPA statute as a way of making money, by purchasing multiple phone numbers in the hope they will receive unsolicited phone calls that violate the TCPA statute. And if they do, they sue. deBanked previously explored “professional plaintiffs” like this, with a focus on those who have come up against funding companies.

According to Michael O’Hare, CEO of Colorado-based Blindbid, people who manipulate the TCPA statute for profit also target lead generation companies like his. O’Hare is currently being sued by a plaintiff for several million dollars in a class action lawsuit. The claim is that Blindbid allegedly made five unsolicited calls in 2016 to the plaintiff’s plumbing company. (According to David Klein, Managing Partner at Klein Moynihan and Turco, there is a murky area in the TCPA regulation where, if a cell phone is used for both personal and business use, the phone can be considered a personal phone, protected under TCPA.) In O’Hare’s case, upon further discovery, it was determined that only one of the five alleged calls actually came from Blindbid. But O’Hare says that the number was opted in and manually dialed. Regardless, O’Hare’s plaintiff is a pro, what some might call a “professional plaintiff.”

TCPAOver the last six years, this plaintiff participated in four major class action lawsuits that have led to combined settlements of $31 million, according to O’Hare. The plaintiff has also filed 34 cases in federal court since 2016, O’Hare said.

What is noteworthy about O’Hare’s case is that it’s part of what he says is a trend towards class action lawsuits based on TCPA violations, and often brought on by professional plaintiffs. O’Hare said it’s no coincidence that his plaintiff waited for two years to sue.

“The longer a plaintiff waits, the more members he can bring into the class. And the more members in the class, the larger settlement,” O’Hare said.

As a way to transform O’Hare’s lawsuit into a class action suit, he said that his plaintiff’s attorney has made the argument that if Blindbid violated his client’s TCPA rights to privacy with the one unsolicited call, then Blindbid likely violated others as well. So in discovery, the plaintiff’s attorney wants to compel Blindbid to turn over its phone records for the past two years to prove that Blindbid had “express written consent” from the other merchants it called. In the age of the internet, “express written consent” translates to filling out an online form where the individual consents to receive a phone call.

To satisfy the attorney’s request, Blindbid would have to match every phone number that was called with a corresponding computer IP address. This should be doable, but O’Hare says that professional plaintiffs, like his, deny that they ever filled out an online lead form, or that the IP address O’Hare has on record belongs to them.

“In the past, if there was an alleged TCPA violation, most companies could settle for a few thousand dollars to $10,000 depending on the number of violations,” O’Hare said. “Now there are these are multi-million dollar settlements.”

Unlike the fines of years past, these class action lawsuits can sink your company. While O’Hare said that there is no way to completely protect one’s company from being sued, below are some of his recommendations.

Have express written consent of all the merchants you call

Online consent is valid if the text explicitly states to the user that he is giving, in effect, express written consent to be contacted by your company by phone, text and/or email.

 

Register  your company with Federal and State Do Not Call Registries.

 

Respect merchants’ requests

If they do not want to be called any longer, put their numbers on your “Do Not Call” list.

 

Have a written “Do Not Call” policy

Have a TCPA attorney review the policy and include a copy in your company employee guide.

 

Find a good TCPA scrubbing service

These are services that have many of the numbers that belong to professional plaintiffs and they monitor for newly registered phone numbers. They tell you which numbers to remove from your lists. Some good scrubbing services are TCPALitigatorList.com and  DNC.com.

 

Don’t buy lists from overseas  

These lists are full of professional litigator phone numbers you are taking a huge risks.  

  

Never autodial / robo call

Robo calls are the most dangerous type of calls you can make unless you have a full opt-in list with express written consent from each of the merchants. Robo calls and text messaging TCPA violations are the easiest TCPA cases for plaintiffs to win and the settlements are higher.  Every robocall or text is fined. The use of an autodialer is one of the elements to prove a TCPA violation. If you use an auto dialer with human intervention, like EVS 7, you can argue that your autodialer calls are manual calls. Still, use caution.

 

Consult with a TCPA attorney

I would advise every company that does any outbound calling to consult with a TCPA attorney about best practices. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

MCA Funder Says Debt Settlement Company Operating Illegally Without a Budget Planning License

July 11, 2018
Article by:

lawsuit over moneyMerchant Cash Advance companies are on the warpath against debt settlement companies. In the latest legal offensive, High Speed Capital alleges that Corporate Debt Advisors’ debt settlement business is really just an unlicensed Budget Planning operation, a misdemeanor criminal offense in New York.

High Speed’s petition cites New York General Business Law § 455. “So-called ‘debt negotiation’ and ‘debt settlement’ companies that negotiate settlements between debtors and creditors on behalf of the debtors and which may coordinate or supervise payment by the debtors to the creditors in exchange for fees from the debtor are engaged in Budget Planning,” they say. “Budget Planning agreements with unlicensed entities are void for illegality and cannot be upheld by the Court.”

At issue in this action is that the transfer of funds from the merchant to Corporate Debt Advisors is allegedly fraudulent. High Speed won a judgment against the merchant in October 2017 and believes those funds belong to it. Corporate Debt Advisors has refused to send the funds in its possession to High Speed and has instead tried to negotiate. High Speed’s petition before the Court asks that Corporate Debt Advisors turn over the funds immediately to High Speed.

The case can be found in the New York Supreme Court, Erie County under Index #: 810673/2018. You can view the petition here.

Usury Argument in Merchant Cash Advance Suit Backfires Horribly

June 25, 2018
Article by:

law booksA New York Supreme Court judge in Erie County, New York has had enough with attorneys trying to argue that merchant cash advances are loans. In Yellowstone Capital, LLC v. Central USA Wireless, LLC et al (Index No: 811837-2017), the Honorable Timothy J. Walker balked at the defendants’ argument that the MCA agreement was usurious.

“The only ‘proof’ that Defendants submit in support of their usury claim are self-serving misconstructions of cherry-picked provisions of the merchant agreement, and an outright disregard for contrary provisions contained in that document,” he opined.

Citing dozens of trial court decisions in merchant cash advance cases and binding precedent established by Champion Auto Sales, the judge not only shot the usury argument down but also awarded the recovery of attorney fees to the MCA company for having to defend themselves against something so frivolous.

“The Court determines, in light of the history of these litigated matters and known binding precedent, Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defending the Motion [..],” he ordered.

The full decision can be viewed here.

Lawyers Weigh in on Federal Decision That CFPB is Unconstitutional

June 22, 2018
Article by:

In light of a federal court ruling yesterday that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is unconstitutional, deBanked spoke with some lawyers to get their perspective on what this decision could mean.

Alan Kaplinsky
Alan Kaplinsky, Partner, Ballard Spahr

Alan Kaplinsky, Partner, Ballard Spahr

“I think it will sow more confusion related to the CFPB. I think it’s important to note that this opinion – while it is precedent that could be cited in other cases…it’s not binding on any other court anywhere in the country, including in the Southern District of New York. That being said, I anticipate that the CFPB will appeal [the decision] if for no other reason than because they have other cases. Ultimately, I would anticipate that the case will end up in the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Lucy Morris
Lucy Morris, Partner, Hudson Cook

Lucy Morris, Partner, Hudson Cook (previously a Deputy Enforcement Director at the CFPB)

“The bottom line is that it creates yet more uncertainty for the bureau, for industry and for consumers. Is this bureau legitimate or not? And if not, what does that mean for all of the many decisions and actions taken by the former [CFPB] director Cordray and the current acting director, Mulvaney.

Maybe this can add to a momentum to create a bipartisan commission to finally resolve this, and to give everyone a commission that…avoids the wide pendulum swings that have been happening. This requires a legislative fix, which is challenging of course.”

Kaplan-Lawrence
Lawrence Kaplan, Of Counsel, Paul Hastings

Lawrence Kaplan, Of Counsel, Paul Hastings

“Typically, in a case like this, you would have a circuit split, where now you have one circuit saying yes and one circuit saying no. And ultimately that would go up to the supreme court. But you could have the administration saying ‘We’re not going to defend this.’ [Given the administration’s unfavorable attitude toward the CFPB], it’s likely that you’re not going to see anyone vigorously defend the agency.

As for alternative lenders, [these] are state issues. And as a result, [lenders] are not off the hook…At the end of the day, everyone will still have to comply with a patchwork of state laws. You’re really taking away the federal hammer. So, [certain cases] may no longer be a federal case. Now, in some ways, be careful what you wish for, because now you have to face 50 executioners [because] a lot of the states would defer to and join with the feds.”

 

Stacking Lawsuit Results in Settlement Before Trial

June 19, 2018
Article by:

A lawsuit between RapidAdvance and Pearl Capital over tortious interference will not be going to trial after all, deBanked has learned. Originally scheduled to begin on June 25th, the parties have reportedly reached a settlement.

Neither party would respond for comment.

RapidAdvance filed its lawsuit against Pearl in November 2015 with the hope that they could set a precedent against “stacking.”

The suit was filed in the Circuit Court of Maryland under Small Business Financial Solutions, LLC v. Pearl Beta Funding, LLC, Case No. 411478-V.

Lawyers in LendingClub Class Action Case Defend Fee That ‘Shocked’ a Judge

June 14, 2018
Article by:

class action lawsuitLawyers from Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd represented clients in a class action suit against LendingClub and reached a settlement with the company for $125 million. The law firm, which was working on contingency, requested a 13.1 percent cut of the winnings, or $16 million, which a California Federal judge said “shocked” him.

Earlier in the week, Robbins Geller filed a 30-page motion in defense of its fee. Among the law firm’s arguments are that they carried a significant financial burden with this as a contingency case and that the firm succeeded in reaching an uncommonly high settlement. “A settlement that Wall Street analysts have described as ‘far exceed[ing] our expectations’ and ‘coming in at the high end of the historical range of settlements,’” the motion read.

Robbins Geller also compared its success to the results (or lack thereof) of government agencies, like the SEC and the DOJ, which have presumably tried to represent the investor clients against LendingClub and have failed.

“The DOJ lawyers do not even have to deal with counsel for witnesses whom they question before a grand jury, nor do they have to ask for documents – they can seize them through search warrants….Yet, despite all these advantages, the government has not brought a single civil or criminal charge in connection with these same facts. Nor has the government recovered a single penny for investors. Relative to the government’s results, a $125 million recovery is astounding.”

The motion also acknowledged that they were up against a defendant whose resources were far greater than theirs. And it further asserts that the firm’s effective research and skill ought to be rewarded – for obtaining the right documents and being prepared to depose the right witnesses that adequately scared LendingClub into paying a very generous settlement.

There will be a court hearing to address Robbins Geller’s motion on July 19 in the Northern District of California.

 

Eaglewood Not Happy About World Global Financing Bankruptcy

May 21, 2018
Article by:

A new complaint filed by Eaglewood SPV I LP suggests they’re not happy with ailing merchant cash advance company World Global Financing (WGF). Eaglewood originally sued WGF on March 28th in the New York Supreme Court and secured an injunction on May 2nd to turn over the cash and proceeds from receivables owed to Eaglewood. According to Eaglewood, WGF proceeded to ignore the court’s order and Eaglewood hasn’t been receiving anything. On May 8th, WGF filed Chapter 11.

The new complaint alleges that WGF and the company’s owner have engaged in fraud and that Eaglewood has been damaged to the tune of $6.5 million.

Sneaky Debt Settlement Company Temporarily Restrained by Judge

May 20, 2018
Article by:

lawyer going to the courthouseA debt settlement company has sunk to new lows, according to a petition filed by Yellowstone Capital in Nassau County. Defendants SMCA, Inc. DBA Settle My Cash Advance, Thassos.com Corp DBA Thassos.com, and George Alexander, have been accused of fraudulently transferring funds owed to Yellowstone Capital to themselves while trying to mask the evidence in the process.

Unlike other purported debt settlement schemes, the Settle My Cash Advance defendants are alleged to have first actively coached a merchant to hide his money in new bank accounts rather than pay his judgment. This, according to emails attached as exhibits, included instructions by the defendants on how to cover up the paper trail so that the money could not be traced. Once this was successfully carried out, the defendants then absconded with the merchant’s money, leaving him broke and the judgment still unpaid.

According to the merchant’s sworn affidavit, Settle My Cash Advance lured him into believing that they not only had a relationship with Yellowstone but that they would also reduce the judgment entered against his business by 25% – 70%.

“SMCA (Settle My Cash Advance) told me to transfer all funds, as my business and I earned them, to SMCA to hold them for us so that Yellowstone could not collect on its judgment,” the merchant wrote. “The deal that SMCA represented to me was that SMCA would take the funds, hold them in trust, and use them to settle our obligations with Yellowstone for a small contingency fee.”

What happened instead is that the defendants ran off with the money held in trust and did nothing to help with Yellowstone, the documents say.

Presented with the facts laid out before it, the Court ordered that the funds held by Settle My Cash Advance be restrained pending a May 30th hearing.

The Petition filed in the matter can be viewed here.