| Volume 125 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
Should you buy an extended warranty with your next purchase? Most studies show they are not worth it. Also, check out your credit card agreement. Some, like American Express offer free extended warranty protection Click here for more.
Senate Democrat Urge Agencies to Protect Against For-Profit Colleges
On Thursday, a group of Democrat Senators sent a letter to the Federal Trade Commission, Department of Veterans Affairs, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Education Department, to urge them to create an online tool that alerts and warns potential students of companies posing as universities without a state license, charter or accreditation. They also asked the agencies to “enhance and prioritize” enforcement of federal consumer-protection laws that prohibit deceptive practices by businesses or “individuals who lend their names to sham outfits.” The senators are seeking a response by the end of August. Click here for more.
Your Money
Is sharing your Netflix password illegal? Last week, a court ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals raised concerns that people can be prosecuted for sharing their Netflix password. The decision found that the defendant violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by using a shared password—hence headlines proclaiming the end of shared Netflix accounts. It’s not clear what the ruling does mean in terms of when it is illegal to share passwords. Making things more confusing, the majority opinion states outright: “This appeal is not about password sharing.” The implications of the decision are probably not as clear-cut as “all password sharing is illegal all the time.” Click here for more.
For the Lawyers
Letter to consumer sent to address of brother by debt collector does not violate Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. A New York district court considered several claims under the FDCPA involving third party communications. A collection letter addressed to the consumer was sent to his brother's address. According to the complaint, the consumer never resided at the brother’s address, never provided the creditor with the address and never used that address to receive mail. According to the plaintiff, the communication violated the FDCPA, including sections 1692c(b) and 1692c(a)(1) of the FDCPA. The court disagreed. Section 1692c(b) of the FDCPA generally prohibits debt collectors from communicating with most third parties except with the prior consent of the consumer. The court noted that the letter was properly addressed to the consumer and “plaintiff’s brother only learned of Plaintiff’s alleged debt after he violated federal criminal law by opening an envelope that was not addressed to him.” The consumer also asserted the letter violated 1692c(a)(1) because, after previously sending correspondence to the consumer at his correct address, the debt collector sent a letter to the consumer at his brother’s address, an unusual place or place known or which should have been known to be inconvenient to him. The court found that even if the brother had simply delivered the envelope to plaintiff without opening it, defendant would still have communicated with plaintiff at an unusual or inconvenient place. In Duran v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85843 (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 30, 2016). Click here for more.