| Volume 144 Number 54 |
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
Scammers can be very convincing. They call, email, and send text messages trying to get our money or personal information. They often target specific communities, including Latinos, and frequently use scare tactics. And, unfortunately, they're good at what they do.
So if you’ve already paid someone you think is a scammer, what’s your next step? Click here for more.
Robocallers have apparently found a way around FCC’s mandates
If you’ve noticed that robocalls are starting to creep back on your phone, a new report suggests why. Out of the estimated 80 billion unwanted robocalls in the last 12 months, TNS' biannual Robocall Investigation Report dismisses any public perception that the top big six US carriers (AT&T, CenturyLink, Charter Communications, Comcast, T-Mobile and Verizon) are to blame. Trying to meet the standards recently created by the Federal Communications Commission, those carriers have done what they were tasked with and originate less than 5% of all high-risk robocalls, despite accounting for three-quarters of all intercarrier traffic.
So, where exactly are these robocalls coming from? Well, the ingenious among the roboscammers have figured out that using Voice over Internet Protocol, where calls are made over internet networks, is the workaround. Click here for more.
Your Money
Even though extended federal unemployment benefits ended in September, out-of-work individuals can still access unemployment benefits and retroactive payments. Benefits vary across states, but those relying on unemployment insurance will likely see a drop in benefits in the coming weeks compared with pandemic-era checks. Click here for more.
For the Lawyers
In 2019, the California legislature passed AB 51, a law prohibiting employers from requiring employees to agree to arbitration as a condition of employment. Before the law went into effect, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce—a coalition of employers—challenged the law in federal court, arguing that it violated the Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”). The FAA effectively requires arbitration agreements to be treated the same as any other contract. That is, under the FAA arbitration agreements are not allowed to be singled out or targeted for any special rules or heightened scrutiny. Reviewing the challenge, the federal court for the Eastern District of California ruled that the challenge was likely to be successful and granted a temporary injunction barring the law from being enforced. The State of California appealed the ruling to the 9th Circuit, who disagreed with the Eastern District and upheld the law. Affirming the law’s validity in a 2-1 split decision, the 9th Circuit reasoned that AB 51 did not in fact separate arbitration agreements out for unique treatment in violation of the FAA, but rather simply prohibited mandatory arbitration. In the majority’s view, the law did not address the “enforcement” of arbitration agreements, and thus did not violate the FAA. Brice v. Haynes Investments LLC, (9th Cir. 2021) Click here for more.