Insurers COVID-19 Notepad: What You Need to Know Now (Week of June 14) | All Alerts & Newsletters crowell.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from crowell.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
In
Tinsley v. Fairway Collections, LLC, the Western
District of Washington recently issued an opinion finding that
dismissal of a consumer s FDCPA claim was not warranted
because she alleged not owing the underlying debt at the time a
collection lawsuit was filed against her. The court also found that
a consumer does not need to allege that the collection lawsuit
filed against her was in bad faith in order to assert a violation
of the FDCPA.
In 2017, Tinsley s credit union notified her that someone
used stolen checks to attempt to make several purchases on her
account. The credit union did not honor the transactions, refunded
In
Tinsley v. Fairway Collections, LLC, the Western District of Washington recently issued an opinion finding that dismissal of a consumer’s FDCPA claim was not warranted because she alleged not owing the underlying debt at the time a collection lawsuit was filed against her. The court also found that a consumer does not need to allege that the collection lawsuit filed against her was in bad faith in order to assert a violation of the FDCPA.
In 2017, Tinsley’s credit union notified her that someone used stolen checks to attempt to make several purchases on her account. The credit union did not honor the transactions, refunded all fees, and closed the plaintiff’s account. In December 2020, Fairway filed suit against the plaintiff, alleging she owed $237.99 for a dishonored check. The check was written after the plaintiff’s account was closed by the credit union. The plaintiff retained counsel after being served with Fairway’s lawsuit. The plaintiff’s attorney contacted
The news: Seattle-based Zillow Group responded to an antitrust lawsuit filed by Austin-based real estate startup Real Estate Exchange in March that accused…
Tech
your username
April 28, 2021
On Tuesday, consumers filed a class-action complaint against Samsung Electronics America Inc. in the District of New Jersey over alleged defects of the Samsung Galaxy S20, S20 Ultra, and S20 FE, which purportedly cause the smartphone’s cameras to shatter and break.
According to the complaint, in the first quarter of 2020, “Samsung captured 20% of the global smartphone market share. Samsung achieved this in great part by recognizing that a smartphone’s functionality as a camera is critically important to consumers.” In particular, in March 2020, the Samsung Galaxy S20 and S20 Ultra phones were released, and, in October 2020, the S20 FE was released. The plaintiffs noted that these phones “have a prominent back camera module that encases multiple camera lenses.” As a result, because these phones are marketed as “camera focused” and have multiple camera lenses, the phones can cost up to $1,600.