| Volume 123 Number 8 |
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
Are you in a dispute with a contractor or builder who did some construction on your home? Did he threaten to put a lien on your house if you don't pay? He may have the right to do so, but only if you and your spouse signed a written contract before the work began. Threatening a lien without the proper documentation violates our debt collection law, and wrongfully putting a lien on your property could entitle you to substantial damages. Click here for more.
UPS to Offer On-Demand 3D Printing
United Parcel Service Inc, the world's largest package delivery company, said it will expand the 3D printing services provided through its UPS Stores to create an on-demand manufacturing network starting this summer. Customers will be able to upload digital designs, and the part will be printed at the UPS Store nearest to them for delivery. Click here for more.
Your Money
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau highlighted the perils of vehicle title loans in a new report, as it gears up to propose a sweeping new rule to rein in small-dollar loans carrying hefty interest rates. Click here for more.
For the Lawyers
Standing under FCRA requires “injury in fact.” An injury in fact is a requirement for standing under Article III of the Constitution. In the instant case, Robins filed a class-action complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, claiming, among other things, that Spokeo willfully failed to comply with the FCRA. The Court noted that to establish injury in fact, a plaintiff must show that he or she suffered “an invasion of a legally protected interest” that is “concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” A “concrete” injury must be “de facto”; that is, it must actually exist— “real,” and not “abstract.”. The Ninth Circuit’s analysis focused on the second characteristic (particularity), but it overlooked the first (concreteness). It did not address the question framed by our discussion, namely, whether the particular procedural violations alleged in this case entail a degree of risk sufficient to meet the concreteness requirement. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins (US Sup Ct) Click here for more.