Jonathan Hoffmann

Jonathan Hoffmann’s practice focuses on consumer and financial services litigation, including individual and class action lawsuits under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). He also regularly advises clients on compliance issues and best practices.

Firm/Organization: Balch & Bingham LLP

Blogs: Past Due, Southeast Financial Litigation Monitor

Latest Articles

Past Due

Compelling Arbitration of TCPA Claims Alive and Well

By Jonathan Hoffmann on May 20, 2019

Two recent opinions show that litigants should always determine whether compelling arbitration is viable tactic in fighting claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). In Fridman v. Uber Tech. Inc., two plaintiffs—one a former driver, the other a rejected applicant—sued Uber regarding unsolicited text messages to their cell phones, allegedly in violation of the TCPA. Uber moved to compel arbitration, looking to technology services agreement executed by both plaintiffs. Though the plaintiffs sought to…

Past Due

TCPA Vicarious Liability Passes from Collector Through Servicer to Original Creditor

By Jonathan Hoffmann on May 13, 2019

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that an original creditor was liable under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) for calls made by a debt collector with which the creditor had no contractual relationship. In Henderson v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc., Henderson took out student loans ultimately owned by United Student Aid Funds, Inc. (USA Funds). USA Funds contracted with Navient Solutions, Inc. (Navient) to service certain of its loans, including Henderson’s,…

Past Due

CFPB Issues FDCPA Proposed Rule: A Detailed Overview

By Jonathan Hoffmann on May 8, 2019

On May 7, 2019, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) released a much anticipated proposed rule regarding the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The proposed rule marks a momentous development for debt collection and the accounts receivable management industry generally. Before delving into some high level specifics on the over five-hundred page proposal, it’s worth noting that the CFPB has issued a proposed rule, which will have a 90-day comment period and which itself…

Past Due

FDCPA Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Bring Class Action for Validation Letter

By Jason Tompkins & Jonathan Hoffmann on May 6, 2019

In Pozzuolo v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently dismissed the named plaintiff of a putative class action for lack of standing to bring suit. Pozzuolo sought to represent a class of individuals who received validation notice letters from Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (PRA), which arguably ran afoul of the Fair Debt Collection Pracitces Act (FDCPA)—and more specifically 15 U.S.C. § 1692g—by stating disputes could be made telephonically when the FDCPA…

Past Due

TCPA Insurance Coverage: A Glimmer of Hope?

By Jonathan Hoffmann on May 2, 2019

In 2017, National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburg, Pa. successfully obtained dismissal of an insurance denial suit by Yahoo! brought in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In the suit (Case No. 5:17-cv-00447), Yahoo! alleged that National Union had wrongfully refused to defend five underlying Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) suits against Yahoo!. The policy at issue had a provision regarding publication of material violating privacy rights that Yahoo! sought…

Past Due

Doesn’t matter if you didn’t put a ring on it: ringless voicemails are “calls” under the TCPA

By Jonathan Hoffmann & Jason Tompkins on April 2, 2019

The Southern District of Florida recently ruled that ringless voicemails (RVM) are “calls” under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). In Schaevitz v. Braman Hyundai, No. 1:17-cv-23890 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 25, 2019) the defendant sent a pre-recorded RVM to the plaintiff soliciting a return call regarding trading in the plaintiff’s car for a newer model. The technology used created an internet-based computer-to-computer connection direct from the sender to the recipient’s voicemail box without causing the…

Past Due

So, what’s an autodialer now?

By Jonathan Hoffmann on December 10, 2018

Few things under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) are subject to as much uncertainty as the definition of “automatic telephone dialing system” (ATDS). This year’s decision in ACA Int’l v. FCC, 885 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. 2018) seems to have raised more questions than it answered as courts and the FCC continue to grapple with this definitional component of the TCPA. Courts are divided as to how to define an ATDS as demonstrated by…

Past Due

Defendant May Seek Indemnification of TCPA Claims from Intended Recipient

By Jason Tompkins & Jonathan Hoffmann on June 28, 2018

In Tucker v. Credit One Bank, the plaintiff filed suit after receiving hundreds of debt collection calls allegedly via an ATDS after informing Credit One they had reached the wrong number. In investigating the claims, Credit One determined that the calls were intended for plaintiff’s daughter, who provided the plaintiff’s number as a secondary contact when applying for a credit card for which the daughter ultimately went delinquent. Credit One’ agreement with plaintiff’s daughter contained the…

Past Due

Ninth Circuit dismisses putative FCRA class action based on lack of standing under Spokeo

By Jonathan Hoffmann & Jason Tompkins on June 11, 2018

In a recent opinion, the Ninth Circuit held a plaintiff lacked Article III standing under Spokeo for her complaint on behalf of herself and a putative class action alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) against the National Park Service (the “NPS”). In Daniel v. National Park Service, No. 16-35689 (9th Cir. May 30, 2018), Stephanie Daniel alleged that the NPS violated the FCRA when Daniel purchased an entrance pass to Yellowstone National…

Past Due

Third Circuit Applies ACA on ATDS Issue Requiring Present Capacity

By Jonathan Hoffmann on May 30, 2018

In Dominguez v. Yahoo!, Inc., the Third Circuit issued a precedential decision, requiring calling platforms have present—not potential—capacity to store or produce and call telephone numbers using a random or sequential number generator to constitute an “autodialer” under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). After buying a used smartphone, Dominguez received texts from Yahoo intended for the prior owner who set up a notification for when they received emails to their Yahoo account. When Dominguez asked for…

Jonathan Hoffmann

Compelling Arbitration of TCPA Claims Alive and Well

TCPA Vicarious Liability Passes from Collector Through Servicer to Original Creditor

CFPB Issues FDCPA Proposed Rule: A Detailed Overview

FDCPA Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Bring Class Action for Validation Letter

TCPA Insurance Coverage: A Glimmer of Hope?

Doesn’t matter if you didn’t put a ring on it: ringless voicemails are “calls” under the TCPA

So, what’s an autodialer now?

Defendant May Seek Indemnification of TCPA Claims from Intended Recipient

Ninth Circuit dismisses putative FCRA class action based on lack of standing under Spokeo

Third Circuit Applies ACA on ATDS Issue Requiring Present Capacity

Company

Support

New to the Network