| Volume 123 Number 7 |
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
Never cash a check and return part of the proceeds to the person who gave it to you! One of the most common and successful scams involves paying for something with a certified or cashiers’ check in a larger amount and asking for the difference. The check is counterfeit and you will be out whatever money you return. Click here for more.
Google Faces Record 3 Billion Antitrust Fine
Google faces a record antitrust fine of $3.4 billion euros from the European Commission. The European Union has accused Google of promoting its shopping service in Internet searches at the expense of rival services in a case that has dragged on since late 2010. Click here for more.
Your Money
For college graduates entering a challenging job market, some of whom are carrying tremendous student loan debt, any gift to help them better manage their money is both practical and welcome. Click on the link for three ways to help recent graduates find their financial footing in the real world. Click here for more.
For the Lawyers
A telephone messaging case in the Eastern District of New York from January is certified for interlocutory appeal to the Second Circuit. Back in January, the district court held that a debt collector, whose telephone call to a debtor is answered by a third party, must refrain from leaving callback information and attempt to call back later. In the case, Defendant debt collector telephoned Plaintiff about his debt, and a third party responded that "Herschel [the debtor/plaintiff] is not yet in," and asked if he could take a message. The collection agent responded, "Name is Eric Panganiban. Callback number is 1-866-277-1877 ... direct extension is 6929. Regarding a personal business matter." The Court determined that this message is a “communication in connection with the collection of a debt" because its purpose is to solicit a call back, and thus, is subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which prohibits debt collectors them from leaving a message identifying themselves as such under §1692c(b). However, this past week, the Court recognized the potential impact the issue has for the entire debt collection industry. The Court also noted that the defendant’s policy for leaving messages is a standard practice of many collection agencies to leave nonspecific call-back messages with third parties in certifying the matter for interlocutory appeal. Halberstam v. Global Credit and Collection Corp. Click here for more.