On Wednesday, August 7, 2019, at 12 p.m. CT, Seyfarth attorneys will review the latest consumer class action law developments affecting companies that do business in California. It is no secret that resourceful plaintiff’s attorneys target companies conducting business in California with expensive and time-consuming putative class actions alleging violations of federal or state consumer

In a decision handed down this week, a federal court in New Jersey did little to stem the tide of litigation under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”).  Declining to follow New Jersey state court precedent, the district court held that claims based on the faxing of identical commercial advertisements met the requirements of Rule

A threshold– and critical– determination in the defense of litigation brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 et seq. (“TCPA” or “Act”) is whether an insurance policy provides coverage of the allegations set forth in the Complaint.  In a recent decision by the Missouri Supreme Court in Columbia Casualty Company

A growing trend in TCPA litigation is for plaintiffs to bring putative TCPA class actions based on telephone calls that were meant for a third-party who actually provided consent for the call.   In a strongly worded opinion, Judge Virginia M. Kendall of the Northern District of Illinois recently dealt a blow to one such attempt

On July 15, 2013, Judge David O. Carter of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered an opinion in Craftwood II, Inc. v. Tomy International, Inc., No. SA CV 12-1710 (C.D. Cal.), denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment and rejecting defendant’s argument that its offer of judgment mooted plaintiff’s claims.

Adding to the growing list of Defendants forced into large settlements under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), the Northern District of California approved a $6 million common fund class settlement, inclusive of a 25%, or $1.5 million, attorneys’ fees allocation.

Factual Background

On May 27, 2011, two individuals filed a class action lawsuit against