| Volume 126 Number 9 |
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
I am sure you have all heard the many stories about frivolous lawsuits. Stories about people who refuse to take responsibility for their own misconduct and try to collect damages from others. What you may not have heard is “the rest of the story.” Click here for more.
Uber to Roll Out Self-Driving Cars in Pittsburgh This Month
Ride-hailing company Uber is rushing to complete its plan to replace 1 million human drivers with robots. Within weeks the company will deploy self-driving Fords and Volvos to pick up customers in Pittsburgh. Uber employees will still be in the car in case things go wrong. Additionally, Uber is partnering with Volvo to work on driverless car development. For the Pittsburgh plan, Uber said that it will select volunteer customers to try out the service. For now, the rides will be free. Click here for more.
Your Money
Are you considering rolling the balance of an old car loan into a new car loan? Make sure you understand how this will affect the total cost of your new loan. If you owe more than your current vehicle is worth, also known as “negative equity,” you should consider whether you can afford a new vehicle. A dealer may offer to “roll in” the balance of your old loan into a loan for a new vehicle. This is called a “negative trade-in,” because the trade-in adds to the cost of the new loan, rather than reducing it. This might make the new loan unaffordable. Be very careful to make sure you understand the total cost of the new loan and the monthly payments – and the loan term (in months) – before you agree to anything. Click here for more.
For the Lawyers
Whether communication states it is from a debt collector is measured by least sophisticated consumer standard. The Ninth Circuit held that if a subsequent communication is sufficient to disclose to the least sophisticated debtor that the communication was from a debt collector, there is no violation of § 1692e(11) even if the debt collector did not expressly state, “this communication is from a debt collector.” The court stated, “we conclude, given the extent of the prior communications, that the voicemail message’s statement that the call was from “Gregory at Hollins Law” was sufficient to disclose to a debtor with a basic level of understanding that the communication at issue was 'from a debt collector.' Indeed, any other interpretation of Daulton’s voicemail message would be 'bizarre or idiosyncratic.'" Davis v. Hollins Law (9th Cir). Click here for more.