| Volume 99 Number 3 |
Subscribe to the Newsletter
Forward this news alert to your family and friends
Helpful Links
Texas Consumer Complaint Center
Credit Reports and Identity Theft
Your Guide to Small Claims Court
Contact Us
1-713-743-2168
The People’s Lawyer’s Tip of the Day
Voluntarily returning a car you can't pay for may not get you off the hook. In most cases, the car will be sold and you will owe the difference between your debt and what the car sells for. If you think the car is being accepted in exchange for release for your debt, get that agreement in writing.
For more general information about the law, check out my website.
Click here for more.
Netflix Puts Blame on Internet Providers
Net neutrality has been a hot topic lately. This time, it's a company that's been cutting deals of it's own fighting back. Recently, Netflix started posting buffering messages when performance issues arise, effectively blaming internet service providers like Verizon for slowing things down.
Will the PR campaign putting blame on ISPs make a difference? Should all companies have access to deliver content through high speed connections even if their content is a greater burden to the networks?
Click here for more.
Sprint and T-Mobile Close to Merger
Back in 2011, AT&T tried to acquire T-Mobile, but had the potential game-changing merger blocked by the United States government. It now appears that T-Mobile is back on the market, and this time Sprint is the interested party.
Since 2011, a lot has changed. In fact, over the past several months, AT&T made the move on DirecTV, and Time Warner and Comcast have agreed to a deal of their own. Although some industry analysts are certain a Sprint acquisition of T-Mobile would be blocked, other experts point to the more recent mergers as a positive sign for the companies moving forward.
The blockbuster deal could be worth upwards of $50 billion, or it could fall apart entirely. If the merger goes through, what will it mean for consumers?
Click here for more.
Online TV Viewing Up 246%
One-fifth of all United States households now watch television through streaming compatible devices. That number represents an astonishing growth of 246% over the first quarter of last year. Viewing on "over-the-top" devices, like Roku and Playstation, grew by 539% over the same period.
The popularity of streaming TV should be expected. It allows consumers to enjoy a la carte content at home or on the go, cutting out the content that they don't want or need. Some content providers, like World Wrestling Entertainment, have moved away from Pay Per View to offer the same content, and much more, at just under $10 a month. Previously, consumers were required to pay about $50 per event, but didn't receive 24 hour access to the events. Additionally, companies like World Wrestling Entertainment and the Ultimate Fighting Championship have moved their entire video libraries to subscription services, allowing consumers to go back and view previous events and even new original content for the same monthly rate. Premium companies like HBO and Showtime are getting in on the game too.
Whether it's binge-watching Netflix or catching a live UFC, streaming television has shown no signs of slowing down. What could the success of streaming television mean for the future of consumer entertainment?
Click here for more.
Your Money
Which is right for you - a 15 or 30 year mortgage?
Click here for more.
For the Lawyers
Debt collector’s offer to “settle” a time-barred debt may violate Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The Seventh Circuit held that debt collectors' letters to consumers offering to "settle" time-barred debts (that is, debts that would be subject to a successful statute-of-limitations defense) could mislead consumers and, thus, could violate the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
The court stated,
"The proposition that a debt collector violates the FDCPA when it misleads an unsophisticated consumer to believe a time-barred debt is legally enforceable, regardless of whether litigation is threatened, is straightforward under the statute. Section 1692e(2)(A) specifically prohibits the false representation of the character or legal status of any debt."
The court emphasized that a threat of legal action is not required.
"The plain language of the FDCPA prohibits not only threatening to take actions that the collector cannot take, but also the use of any false, deceptive, or misleading representation, including those about the character or legal status of any debt."
The court noted that although its ruling created a circuit conflict, it was consistent with positions taken by the Federal Trade Commission and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Click here for more.