Regulatory Archives - Page 2 of 30 - The National Law Forum

Confused About the FCC’s New One-to-One Consent Rules– You’re Not Alone. Here Are Some FAQs Answered For YOU!

Heard a lot about what folks are concerned about in the industry. Still seems to be a lot of confusion about it. So let me help with some answers to critical questions.

None of this is legal advice. Absolutely critical you hire a lawyer–AND A GOOD ONE–to assist you here. But this should help orient.

What is the new FCC One-to-One Ruling?

The FCC’s one-to-one ruling is a new federal regulation that alters the TCPA’s express written consent definition in a manner that requires consumers to select each “seller”–that is the ultimate good or service provider–the consumer chooses to receive calls from individually.

The ruling also limits the scope of consent to matters “logically and topically” related to the transaction that lead to consent.

Under the TCPA express written consent is required for any call that is made using regulated technology, which includes autodialers (ATDS), prerecorded or artificial voice calls, AI voice calls, and any form of outbound IVR or voicemail technology (including ringless) using prerecorded or artifical voice messages.

Why Does the FCC’s New One-to-One Ruling Matter?

Currently online webforms and comparison shopping websites are used to generate “leads” for direct to consumer marketers, insurance agents, real estate agents, and product sellers in numerous verticals.

Millions of leads a month are sold by tens of thousands of lead generation websites, leading to hundreds of millions of regulated marketing calls by businesses that rely on these websites to provide “leads”–consumers interested in hearing about their goods or services.

Prior to the new one-to-one ruling website operators were free to include partner pages that linked thousands of companies the consumer might be providing consent to receive calls from. And fine-print disclosures might allow a consumer to receive calls from business selling products unrelated to the consumer’s request. (For instance a website offering information about a home for sale might include fine print allowing the consumer’s data to be sold to a mortgage lender or insurance broker to receive calls.)

The new one-to-one rule stop these practices and requires website operators to specifically identify each good or service provider that might be contacting the consumer and requires the consumer to select each such provider on a one by one basis in order for consent to be valid.

Will the FCC’s One-to-One Ruling Impact Me?

If you are buying or selling leads, YES this ruling will effect you.

If you are a BPO or call center that relies on leads– YES this ruling will effect you.

If you are a CPaaS or communication platform–YES this ruling will effect you.

If you are a telecom carrier–YES this ruling will effect you.

If you are lead gen platform or service provider–YES this ruling will effect you.

If you generate first-party leads–Yes this ruling will effect you.

When Does the Rule Go Into Effect?

The ruling applies to all calls made in reliance on leads beginning January 27, 2025.

However, the ruling applies regardless of the date the lead was generated. So compliance efforts need to begin early so as to assure a pipeline of available leads to contact on that date.

In other words, all leads NOT in compliance with the FCC’s one-to-one rule CANNOT be called beginning January 27, 2025.

What Do I have to Do to Comply?

Three things:

i) Comply with the rather complex, but navigable new one-to-one rule paradigm. (The Troutman Amin Fifteen is a handy checklist to assist you);

ii) Assure the lead is being captured in a manner that is “logically and topically” related to the calls that will be placed; and

iii) Assure the caller has possession of the consent record before the call is made.

Understanding the Enhanced Regulation S-P Requirements

On May 16, 2024, the Securities and Exchange Commission adopted amendments to Regulation S-P, the regulation that governs the treatment of nonpublic personal information about consumers by certain financial institutions. The amendments apply to broker-dealers, investment companies, and registered investment advisers (collectively, “covered institutions”) and are designed to modernize and enhance the protection of consumer financial information. Regulation S-P continues to require covered institutions to implement written polices and procedures to safeguard customer records and information (the “safeguards rule”), properly dispose of consumer information to protect against unauthorized use (the “disposal rule”), and implementation of a privacy policy notice containing an opt out option. Registered investment advisers with over $1.5 billion in assets under management will have until November 16, 2025 (18 months) to comply, those entities with less will have until May 16, 2026 (24 months) to comply.

Incident Response Program

Covered institutions will have to implement an Incident Response Program (the “Program”) to their written policies and procedures if they have not already done so. The Program must be designed to detect, respond to, and recover customer information from unauthorized third parties. The nature and scope of the incident must be documented with further steps taken to prevent additional unauthorized use. Covered institutions will also be responsible for adopting procedures regarding the oversight of third-party service providers that are receiving, maintaining, processing, or accessing their client’s data. The safeguard rule and disposal rule require that nonpublic personal information received from a third-party about their customers should be treated the same as if it were your own client.

Customer Notification Requirement

The amendments require covered institutions to notify affected individuals whose sensitive customer information was, or is reasonably likely to have been, accessed or used without authorization. The amendments require a covered institution to provide the notice as soon as practicable, but not later than 30 days, after becoming aware that unauthorized access to or use of customer information has occurred or is reasonably likely to have occurred. The notices must include details about the incident, the breached data, and how affected individuals can respond to the breach to protect themselves. A covered institution is not required to provide the notification if it determines that the sensitive customer information has not been, and is not reasonably likely to be, used in a manner that would result in substantial harm or inconvenience. To the extent a covered institution will have a notification obligation under both the final amendments and a similar state law, a covered institution may be able to provide one notice to satisfy notification obligations under both the final amendments and the state law, provided that the notice includes all information required under both the final amendments and the state law, which may reduce the number of notices an individual receives.

Recordkeeping

Covered institutions will have to make and maintain the following in their books and records:

Written policies and procedures required to be adopted and implemented pursuant to the Safeguards Rule, including the incident response program;
Written documentation of any detected unauthorized access to or use of customer information, as well as any response to and recovery from such unauthorized access to or use of customer information required by the incident response program;
Written documentation of any investigation and determination made regarding whether notification to customers is required, including the basis for any determination made and any written documentation from the United States Attorney General related to a delay in notice, as well as a copy of any notice transmitted following such determination;
Written policies and procedures required as part of service provider oversight;
Written documentation of any contract entered into pursuant to the service provider oversight requirements; and
Written policies and procedures required to be adopted and implemented for the Disposal Rule.

Registered investment advisers will be required to preserve these records for five years, the first two in an easily accessible place.

Paperless Power: Exploring the Legal Landscape of E-Signatures and eNotes

In an era characterized by rapid technological advancements and the profound shift towards remote work, the traditional concept of signing documents with pen and paper has evolved. Electronic signatures, or e-signatures, have emerged as a convenient and efficient alternative, promising to streamline processes, reduce paperwork, and enhance accessibility. Organizations are increasingly embracing e-signatures for a wide range of transactions, prompting a closer examination of their legal validity.

WHAT IS AN “E-SIGNATURE”?

An e-signature encompasses any electronic sound, symbol, or process associated with a record and executed with the intent to sign. These can range from scanned images of handwritten signatures to digital representations generated by specialized software.

GOVERNING LAW:

The governing law for e-signatures in the United States includes both state-specific laws, like those based on the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA), and the federal ESIGN. ESIGN applies to interstate and foreign transactions, harmonizing electronic transactions across state lines. Many states, including Massachusetts, have adopted UETA, reinforcing the legal standing of e-signatures within their jurisdictions (MUETA).

VALIDITY AND REQUIREMENTS:

Generally, e-signatures are legally binding in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. However, certain documents like wills, adoption papers, and divorce decrees are excluded from the scope of ESIGN and MUETA to safeguard consumer rights and maintain traditional legal practices.

The following components must be present for e-signatures to be fully protected and upheld under ESIGN and MUETA:

Intent: each party intended to execute the document;
Consent: there must be express or implied consent from the parties to do business electronically (under MUETA, consumer consent disclosures may also be required). In addition, signers should also have the option to opt-out;
Association: the e-signature must be “associated” with the document it is intended to authenticate; and
Record Retention: records of the transaction and e-signature must be retained electronically.

Meeting these requirements ensures that e-signatures have the same legal validity and enforceability as traditional handwritten, wet-ink signatures in Massachusetts.

ENFORCEABILITY OF E-NOTES AND CONCERNS FOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS:

An eNote is an electronically created, signed, and stored promissory note. It differs from scanned signatures on paper or PDF copies. Governed by Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), eNotes are considered negotiable instruments and therefore require special treatment. ESIGN provides a framework for their use, emphasizing the concept of a “transferable record.” This electronic record, meeting UCC standards, grants the same legal rights as a traditional paper note to the person in “control.” The objective of “control” is for there to be a single authoritative copy of the promissory note that is unique, identifiable, and unalterable. Therefore, proving authenticity and lender control over eNotes can be complex.

In Massachusetts, specific foreclosure laws require the presentation of the original note. Thus lenders should be cautious with eNotes, as possessing an original, physical note greatly reduces enforceability risks.

Further, financial institutions often face heightened scrutiny when using e-signatures due to the sensitive nature of financial transactions and the potential risks involved to ensure security, compliance, and consumer protection.

RECORDABLE DOCUMENTS:

E-signatures have become widely accepted for recording purposes, including in real estate transactions, due to their convenience and efficiency. The implementation of e-signatures for recording has been facilitated and standardized by legislation such as the Uniform Real Property Electronic Recording Act (URPERA). While URPERA offers a comprehensive framework for electronic recording, its adoption varies from state to state. In Massachusetts, URPERA has not yet been formally adopted, leaving recording procedures subject to individual county regulations.

BEST PRACTICES:

Despite the legal recognition of e-signatures under both ESIGN and MUETA, to ensure compliance, organizations should adopt the following best practices:

Obtain Consent: Obtain (and retain) affirmative consent from parties to conduct transactions electronically.
Association: Establish a clear and direct connection between an electronic signature and the electronic record it is intended to authenticate.
- Embedding: One common method of meeting the association requirement is embedding e-signatures directly within electronic documents.
- Metadata and Audit Trails: Another method is using metadata and audit trails. Metadata contains signature details like signing date, time, signer identity, and transaction specifics. Audit trails chronicle all document actions, reinforcing the link between signatures and records.
Ensure the Integrity of Electronic Records
- Authenticity and Integrity: Use secure methods to authenticate the identity of signatories and ensure the integrity of the electronic records. This can include digital signatures, encryption, and secure access controls.
- Single Authoritative Copy: For transferable records (eNotes), ensure that there is a single authoritative copy that is unique, identifiable, and unalterable except through authorized actions.
Maintain Accessibility and Retainability: Ensure that electronic records are retained in a format that is accessible and readable for the required retention period. This includes being able to accurately reproduce the record in its original form.
Security Measures: Implement robust cybersecurity measures to protect against unauthorized access, alteration, or destruction of electronic records. This includes using firewalls, encryption, and secure user authentication methods.
Provide Consumer Protections: Ensure that consumers have the option to receive paper records and can withdraw their consent to electronic records at any time.
Legal and Regulatory Updates: Keep abreast of any updates or changes in the legal and regulatory landscape regarding electronic transactions and records. Adjust policies and practices accordingly to remain compliant.

CONCLUSION:

While e-signatures offer significant benefits for modern commerce, including efficiency and convenience, their adoption requires careful consideration, especially regarding legal and regulatory compliance. By adhering to best practices and remaining vigilant, businesses and individuals can leverage e-signatures effectively in today’s digital economy.

DOJ Confirms Moving Marijuana to Schedule III; Sidesteps Anticipated Impact on State Cannabis Markets

On May 16, 2024, the Department of Justice (DOJ) initiated the formal rulemaking process to move marijuana to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act. The DOJ’s notice of proposed rulemaking unfortunately sidesteps the hard questions about the impact of rescheduling on the existing state adult-use and medical cannabis markets.

Summary of Content

The 92-page notice of proposed rulemaking primarily summarizes and comments on last year’s recommendations by the Department of Health and Human Services to reschedule marijuana, as well as related legal concerns such as compliance with international treaty obligation. The DOJ emphasizes that if marijuana is transferred to Schedule III, “the manufacture, distribution, dispensing, and possession of marijuana would also remain subject to applicable criminal prohibitions under the CSA [Controlled Substances Act],” and that marijuana would remain subject to applicable provisions of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act.

With respect to the critical question of impact on the cannabis markets, however, the DOJ is silent and merely states that it is “seeking comment on the practical consequences of rescheduling marijuana.”

By way of explanation, the DOJ offers:

“DOJ recognizes this action may have unique economic impacts. As stated above, marijuana is subject to a number of State laws that have allowed a multibillion dollar industry to develop. DOJ acknowledges that there may be large impacts related to Federal taxes and research and development investment for the pharmaceutical industry, among other things. DOJ is specifically soliciting comments on the economic impact of this proposed rule. DOJ will revise this section at the final rules stage if warranted after consideration of any comments received.” (Emphasis added.)

Robust Public Comments Expected

For an industry that has been eagerly awaiting to hear how the DOJ will approach rules that address the interplay between existing state cannabis laws and the complex web of federal laws around Schedule III drugs, the DOJ’s notice is disappointing and may not bode well for a smooth rulemaking process. DOJ will accept public comments for 60 days once the notice of proposed rulemaking has been published in the Federal Register. We can expect robust commentary from cannabis businesses, state regulators, trade organizations and ancillary industries.

Regardless of the outcome of the final rulemaking, it seems apparent that clarity through congressional action is needed more than ever.

House and Senate Hold Hearings on EPA’s FY 2025 Budget Request

On April 30, 2024, the House Appropriations Subcommittee for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies held a hearing on the fiscal year (FY) 2025 budget request for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee for the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies held a separate hearing on EPA’s FY 2025 budget request on May 1, 2024, and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works held its own hearing on May 8, 2024. On May 15, 2024, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials held a hearing. EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan testified before both of the House Subcommittees, the Senate Subcommittee, and the Senate Committee (written testimony is hyperlinked).

April 30, 2024, House Subcommittee Hearing

During the April 30, 2024, House Subcommittee hearing, Ranking Member Chellie Pingree (D-ME) asked for an update on EPA’s risk assessment of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in biosolids. Regan stated that EPA is working on issuing it in final in 2024, and it will include a focus on certain PFAS to help EPA understand better the specific risks posed to farmers and the uptake in crops and livestock. Regan noted that EPA is working with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to research the risk from biosolids application. EPA intends to hold the polluters responsible for the PFAS accountable and does not want farmers, water systems, or taxpayers in affected communities to bear the burden of the contamination.

As reported in our November 3, 2023, blog item, on November 2, 2023, EPA announced that it granted a petition filed under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to address the use of the chemical N-(1,3-Dimethylbutyl)-N′-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine (6PPD) in tires. Representative Derek Kilmer (D-WA) asked whether EPA still planned to issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) under TSCA Section 6 by the end of 2024 to obtain more information to inform a subsequent regulatory action. Regan stated that EPA expects to issue the ANPRM by fall 2024.

May 1, 2024, Senate Subcommittee Hearing

During the May 1, 2024, Senate Subcommittee hearing, Senator Martin Heinrich (D-NM) asked Regan to explain how EPA will address PFAS contamination under the FY 2025 budget request. Regan noted that EPA recently issued its first-ever National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR), which will reduce PFAS exposure to over 100 million people. EPA also announced grants available to help smaller communities comply with the NPDWR. According to Regan, EPA needs the resources and staff to have a comprehensive approach to protect water quality from PFAS. Regan stated that EPA would use the funding to continue to collect scientific evidence and to study how to design technology and health-based standards to protect as many people as possible from different forms of PFAS.

Senator Gary Peters (D-MI) noted that during a 2023 Senate hearing, Regan testified that EPA had an additional 29 PFAS on its radar for a similar drinking water update and asked Regan about the status of the rulemaking. Regan stated that through the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule, EPA is monitoring drinking water in communities across the United Sates for these 29 PFAS and that EPA intends to pursue regulation for these PFAS.

Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, asked Regan about the key funding increases included in the FY 2025 budget request for some of EPA’s core programs. Regan stated that the increases are intended to allow EPA to keep up with recent progress that it has made. While EPA recently issued the NPDWR for six PFAS, there are an additional 29 PFAS being monitored, and thousands more. EPA wants to ensure the safety of chemicals before they hit the market, and that is one of the places where EPA has a deficit in terms of staffing. According to Regan, EPA is getting more requests from agricultural communities about herbicides and pesticides.

Senator Katie Britt (R-AL) stated that EPA’s recent Endangered Species Act (ESA) proposals, such as the Herbicide Strategy, could impose hundreds of millions of dollars in new restrictions on farmers. Britt asked Regan how EPA would implement Congress’s bipartisan instructions in the FY 2024 appropriations report to consider best available data on pesticide usage, conservation practices, and real-world studies on spray drift and water concentrations. Regan testified that previous EPA decisions spanning decades and court rulings have put EPA in a precarious position. According to Regan, EPA is speaking with the farming and agricultural community and has come up with strategies that have received positive feedback. Britt asked whether EPA would consider appointing designated non-federal representatives to help EPA meet its ESA responsibilities. Regan responded that EPA needs more staff and resources to respond to court decisions and that the particular EPA office is down to levels from the early 2000s. Regan stated that he would need to talk through the use of non-federal representatives and agreed to discuss the issue with Britt.

Subcommittee Chair Jeff Merkley (D-OR) asked Regan what Congress can do to accelerate a solution to replace 6PPD with something that works as well without harming salmon. Regan stated that EPA intends to publish an ANPRM by fall 2024 and that EPA is also researching mitigation efforts to fill in the gap until it can take regulatory action.

Ranking Member Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) noted that in its FY 2024 budget request, EPA proposed a significant decrease in discretionary funding because of new revenues coming in from the Superfund tax, while the FY 2025 request includes additional funding for the program. Murkowski asked Regan for his view of the long-term funding outlook for the Superfund program. Regan testified that the tax collections for the first two years were lower than forecasted by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Because of the gap, for FY 2025, EPA has requested additional funding.

May 8, 2024, Senate Committee Hearing

Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) described EPA’s designation of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as flawed, stating that this would place the financial burden on passive receivers such as water utilities. More information on the designation and on EPA’s PFAS Enforcement Discretion and Settlement Policy Under CERCLA is available in our April 23, 2024, memorandum.

Committee Chair Thomas R. Carper (D-DE) asked Regan to describe the impact that the FY 2024 funding levels had on the TSCA program and what EPA could accomplish if it received the full amount requested in the FY 2025 budget request and maximized revenue collection through the recently updated TSCA fees rule. Regan stated that EPA received a small increase for TSCA in the FY 2022 and 2023 budgets, and it more than doubled the number of chemical reviews that it did each month. Without the funding in the FY 2025 budget request, EPA will see slower approval of new chemistries, especially for those companies in the semi-conductor, automotive, and battery sectors.

May 15, 2024, House Subcommittee Hearing

During the hearing held by the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials, Subcommittee Ranking Member Paul Tonko (D-NY) asked Regan what EPA is doing to address the backlog of new chemical reviews and what Congress can do to support EPA. Regan stated that with the budget increases that EPA received in 2022 and 2023, it more than doubled the number of new chemicals reviewed each month. According to Regan, EPA has reduced the backlog by half and prioritized new chemistries for the semi-conductor, automotive, and battery manufacturing sectors. According to Regan, without the funding in the FY 2025 budget request, EPA will see slower approval of new chemicals.

Representative Frank Pallone (D-NJ), Ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, noted that the reinstated Superfund tax has brought in lower receipts than projected by the Treasury and asked how EPA is adapting to the difference between the Treasury’s forecast and the actual funds collected. Regan testified that EPA is working with the Treasury Department to refine its estimates. According to Regan, the $300 million in the FY 2025 budget request will fill in the gap between the projected and actual tax receipts. Without the additional funding, Regan stated that there would be a slowdown in EPA’s ability to clean up Superfund sites. Pallone then asked Regan what the designation of PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA hazardous substances and EPA’s enforcement policy mean for different sectors. Regan responded that EPA is focused on the manufacturers responsible for the PFAS and will not pursue enforcement actions against sectors such as farmers or water systems.

Representative Randy Weber (R-TX) asked about EPA’s final rule amending the TSCA risk evaluation framework and its removal of the definition of “best available science.” Regan stated that he would have to get more context to respond to Weber. More information on EPA’s final rule is available in our May 14, 2024, memorandum.

Representative Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) asked Regan to comment on the almost 400 premanufacture notifications (PMN) awaiting a risk determination and the more than 90 percent that have passed the statutory deadline of 90 days. According to Regan, the issue predates the Biden-Harris Administration. Regan repeated that with the additional resources from Congress in 2022 and 2023, EPA has more than doubled the reviews completed each month.

Representative John Curtis (R-UT) noted that applications in EPA’s New Chemicals Program have dropped from 600 annually to just over 200 and that in the last two calendar years, EPA made 95 and 101 determinations, respectively. According to Curtis, although EPA is required by law to return fees if it misses deadlines, it has never returned the fee to an applicant when EPA has missed the deadline because applicants coincidentally suspend or withdraw their applications before the deadline. Curtis asked Regan to explain the coincidence of PMNs being suspended or withdrawn just in time to allow EPA to keep the money. Regan stated that he was unaware that applications were being withdrawn from EPA and committed to looking into it. Curtis stated that he has been told that EPA has effectively threatened applicants by phone to suspend or withdraw their applications and stated he would like Regan to look into this and report back. Regan committed to doing so. Curtis followed up by asking about EPA’s assumption that it can charge user fees covering 25 percent of the TSCA program’s budget, regardless of the cost. Regan responded that he is not sure that he agrees with the premise and that he needs to look at EPA’s performance with the budget that it did receive. Regan agreed to have a deeper conversation with Curtis on the topic.

Commentary

The hearings for EPA’s FY 2025 budget request were similar to the hearings for EPA’s FY 2024 budget request. Republicans pressed EPA on why it needs additional funding, criticizing the cost and reach of its current rulemakings, while Regan highlighted EPA’s obligations under federal statutes, including the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, TSCA, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and the ESA, as well as recent court decisions. On balance, no new information emerged.

Eleventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal of FCRA Claims Since Alleged Inaccurate Information Was Not Objectively and Readily Verifiable

In Holden v. Holiday Inn Club Vacations Inc., No. 22-11014, No. 22-11734, 2024 WL 1759143 (11th Cir. 2024), which was a consolidated appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (“Eleventh Circuit” or “Court”) held that the purchasers of a timeshare did not have actionable FCRA claims since the alleged inaccurate information reported to one of the consumer reporting agencies (“CRAs”) was not objectively and readily verifiable. In doing so, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed two decisions issued by United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (“District Court”) granting of summary judgment in favor of the timeshare company in the respective cases.

Summary of Facts and Background

Two consumers, Mark Mayer (“Mayer”) and Tanethia Holden (“Holden”), entered into two separate purchase agreements with Holiday Inn Club Vacations Incorporated (“Holiday”) to acquire timeshare interests in Cape Canaveral and Las Vegas, respectively. Holiday is a timeshare company that allows customers to purchase one or more of its vacation properties in weekly increments that can be used annually during the designated period. As part of the transaction, Holiday’s customers typically elect to finance their timeshare purchases through Holiday, which results in the execution of a promissory note and mortgage.

Mayer’s Purchase, Default, and Dispute

On September 15, 2014, Mayer entered into his purchase agreement with Holiday, which contained a title and closing provision stating the transaction would not close until Mayer made the first three monthly payments, and Holiday recorded a deed in Mayer’s name. The purchase agreement also included a purchaser’s default provision stating that upon Mayer’s default or breach of any of the terms or conditions of the agreement, all sums paid by Mayer would be retained by Holiday as liquidated damages and the parties to the purchase agreement would be relieved from all obligations thereunder. Further, the purchase agreement provided that any payments made under a related promissory note prior to the closing would be subject to the purchaser’s default provision. On the same day, Mayer executed a promissory note to finance his timeshare purchase, which was for a term of 120 months. On July 13, 2015, Holiday recorded a deed in Mayer’s name, and he proceeded to tender timely monthly payments until May 2017. As a result of Mayer’s failure to tender subsequent payments, Holiday reported Mayer’s delinquency to the CRA.

Approximately two years later, Mayer obtained a copy of his credit report and discovered Holiday had reported a past-due balance. Thereafter, Mayer sent multiple letters to the CRA disputing the debt, as he believed the purchase agreement was terminated under the purchaser’s default provision. Each dispute was communicated to Holiday, who in turn certified that the information was accurately reported. Mayer sued Holiday for an alleged violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) of the FCRA based on the furnishing of inaccurate information and failure to “fully and properly re-investigate” the disputes. Holiday eventually moved for partial summary judgment, which the District Court granted. The District Court reasoned that the underlying issue of whether the default provision excused Mayer’s obligation to keep paying was a legal dispute rather than a factual inaccuracy and, in turn, made Mayer’s claim not actionable under the FCRA. Mayer timely appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.

Holden’s Purchase, Default, and Dispute

On June 25, 2016, Holden entered into her purchase agreement with Holiday, which contained a nearly identical title and closing provision to that of Mayer’s purchase agreement. Additionally, Holden’s purchase agreement incorporated a similar purchaser’s default provision. Similarly, Holden executed a promissory note to finance her timeshare purchase, which was for a term of 120 months, and entered into a mortgage to secure the payments under the note. After making her third payment, Holden defaulted and hired an attorney to cancel the purchase agreement pursuant to the closing and title provision and purchaser’s default provision. However, Holiday disputed the purchase agreement was canceled and, on June 19, 2017, recorded a timeshare deed in Holden’s name. More importantly, Holiday reported Holden’s delinquent debt to the CRA.

In response, Holden’s attorney sent three dispute letters to Holiday, which resulted in Holiday investigating the dispute and determining the reporting was accurate since Holden was still obligated under the note. Eventually, Holden sued Holiday for various violations of Florida State law and the FCRA. Holden claimed Holiday reported inaccurate information to the CRA, failed to conduct an appropriate investigation, and failed to correct the inaccuracies. The parties filed competing motions for partial summary judgment, which ended with the District Court granting Holiday’s motion and denying Holden’s motion. Specifically, the District Court held that Holden’s FCRA claim failed because contract disputes regarding whether Holden still owed the underlying debt are legal disputes and not factual inaccuracies. Holden timely appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act

As the Eleventh Circuit reiterated in Holden, when a furnisher is notified of a consumer’s dispute, the furnisher must undertake the following three actions: (1) conduct an investigation surrounding the disputed information; (2) review all relevant information provided by the CRA; and (3) report the results of the investigation to the CRA. When a furnisher determines an item of information disputed by a consumer is incomplete, inaccurate, or cannot be verified, the furnisher is required to modify, delete, or permanently block reporting of the disputed information. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1)(E). Additionally, any disputed information that a furnisher determines is inaccurate or incomplete must be reported to all other CRAs. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1)(D). Despite the foregoing, consumers have no private right of action against furnishers merely for reporting inaccurate information to the CRAs. The only private right of action a consumer may assert against a furnisher is for a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) for failure to conduct a reasonable investigation upon receiving notice of a dispute from a CRA. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(c)(1)).

To successfully prove an FCRA claim, the consumer must demonstrate the following: (1) the consumer identified inaccurate or incomplete information that the furnisher provided to the CRA; and (2) the ensuing investigation was unreasonable based on some facts the furnisher could have uncovered that establish the reported information was inaccurate or incomplete.

The Eleventh Circuit’s Decision

In affirming the District Court’s decisions granting summary judgment and dismissing the FCRA claims, the Eleventh Circuit clarified that whether the alleged inaccuracy was factual or legal was “beside the point. Instead, what matters is whether the alleged inaccuracy was objectively and readily verifiable.” Specifically, the Eleventh Circuit cited to Erickson v. First Advantage Background Servs. Corp., 981 F. 3d 1246, 1251-52 (11th Cir. 2020), which defined “accuracy” as “freedom from mistake or error.” The Eleventh Circuit continued by reiterating that “when evaluating whether a report is accurate under the [FCRA], we look to the objectively reasonable interpretations of the report.” As such, “a report must be factually incorrect, objectively likely to mislead its intended user, or both to violate the maximal accuracy standards of the [FCRA].”

Based on this standard, the Eleventh Circuit held that the alleged inaccurate information on which Mayer and Holden based their FCRA claims was not objectively and readily verifiable since the information stemmed from contractual disputes without simple answers. As such, the Eleventh Circuit found that Holiday took appropriate action upon receiving Mayer and Holden’s disputes by assessing the issues and determining whether the respective debts were due and/or collectible, which thereby satisfied its obligation under the FCRA. While Mayer and Holden argued to the contrary, the Eleventh Circuit held that the resolutions of these contract disputes were not straightforward applications of the law to facts. In support of its decision, the Eleventh Circuit cited to the fact that Florida State courts have reviewed similar timeshare purchase agreements and reached conflicting conclusions about whether the default provisions excused a consumer’s obligation to pay the underlying debt.

Conclusion

Holden is a limited victory for furnishers, as the Eleventh Circuit declined to impose a bright-line rule that only purely factual or transcription errors are actionable under the FCRA and held a court must determine whether the alleged inaccurate information is “objectively and readily verifiable.” Accordingly, there are situations when furnishers are required by the FCRA to accurately report information derived from the readily verifiable and straightforward application of the law to facts. One example of such a situation is misreporting the clear effect of a bankruptcy discharge order on certain types of debt. Thus, furnishers should revisit their investigation and verification procedures so they do not run afoul of the FCRA. Furnishers should also continue to monitor for developing case law as other circuit courts confront these issues.

Understanding the New FLSA Overtime Rule: What Employers Need to Know

Changes to overtime rules under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) announced on April 23, 2023 affect most U.S. employers. The Final Rule substantially increases the number of employees eligible for overtime pay. It is critical that employers understand the rule and its implications for their business.

Current FLSA Overtime Regulations: The Basics

The FLSA requires employers to pay overtime pay of at least 1.5 times an employee’s standard pay rate for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. However, “white collar” and “highly compensated” employees are exempt from this overtime pay requirement if they meet a three-part test:

Salary Basis Test – an employee must be paid a predetermined and fixed salary that is not subject to reduction because of variations in the quality or quantity of work performed.
Salary Level Test – the amount of salary paid must meet a minimum specified amount. (Spoiler Alert: The new rules change the salary level.)
Duties Test – the employee’s job duties must primarily involve executive, administrative, or professional duties.

THE WHITE COLLAR EXEMPTION

The white-collar exemption applies to employees who perform primarily executive, administrative, and professional tasks. Workers who perform these tasks are considered to have more autonomous, managerial, or specialized roles justifying exemption from overtime. Therefore, if an employee’s duties are executive, administrative, and professional, and they satisfy the salary basis and salary level tests in the FLSA, they are not entitled to overtime pay under the FLSA.

HIGHLY COMPENSATED EMPLOYEES

A highly compensated employee (HCE) is someone who earns a high annual compensation (according to salary thresholds in the FLSA) and whose role includes one or more executive, administrative, or professional duties. The FLSA exempts “highly compensated employees” from the overtime pay requirement.

Key Changes to the FLSA Overtime Rules

The new rule increases the salary thresholds in the salary level test for highly compensated and white collar employees. As a result of the changes, less employees will be considered exempt and employers will be liable for significantly more overtime pay. Notably, the types of duties eligible for exemption are not impacted.

The new salary thresholds are introduced in two phases with the first increase becoming effective on July 1, 2024, and the second occurring on January 1, 2025. Importantly, the new rule also includes a mechanism for automatically updating these salary thresholds every three years based on current wage data. This means employers will need to stay vigilant for future increases.

THE NEW SALARY THRESHOLDS

In general, the minimum annual salary to qualify for the white collar exemption is increasing from $35,568 to $58,656 and the total annual compensation requirement for the highly compensated employee exemption is increased from $107,432 to $151,164. Here’s a detailed breakdown of the higher salary thresholds and their effective dates:

New FLSA Overtime Rule - The New Salary Thresholds

Why This Rule Matters: Essential Steps for Employers

This rule will have a significant impact on Pennsylvania employers, potentially reclassifying millions of currently exempt employees as non-exempt and eligible for overtime pay. Employers who fail to comply risk costly back pay, penalties, and lawsuits.

There are practical steps that employers can consider to ensure compliance with the new FLSA rule:

Review Current Employee Salaries, Hours, and Duties: Audit current salaries, hours, and job duties. This review will help identify which employees’ status may be affected by the new salary thresholds for exempt status under the FLSA.
Reclassify Employees as Non-Exempt as Necessary: Based on the review, determine which employees will need to be reclassified from exempt to non-exempt, or awarded a salary increase, to comply with the new rules. This reclassification will make them eligible for overtime pay, altering how their work hours are managed and compensated. It is advisable to consider an employee’s perception of this reclassification when taking this step.
Time Recording Policies and Processes: For employees who are reclassified as non-exempt, implement or update timekeeping procedures to accurately track hours worked. This may also require training employees on time-keeping systems. Effective and accurate time recording is essential for managing overtime and ensuring compliance.
Update Overtime Policies: Revise company overtime policies to reflect changes in employee classifications. Include clear procedures for overtime approval to manage overtime work more effectively and ensure it aligns with budget constraints and business needs.
Bonuses, Incentive Pay, Commissions: Evaluate how non-salary forms of compensation will factor into the new salary thresholds for exempt status. The FLSA determines how this compensation should be treated in determining total annual compensation, which could influence exemption status.
Remember Contractual Obligations: The FLSA is a federal law which applies to all U.S. employers. However, any additional salary commitments in an employment contract still legally bind the employer. These should not be ignored.

Despite the quickly approaching compliance date, we also anticipate legal challenges to this rule, which could delay or change the rules. For now, though, employers should proceed on that basis that the updated regulations will take effect on July 1, 2024. Preparing for this deadline ensures that employers will not be caught off guard and can avoid any potential legal and financial repercussions.

SEC Stays Climate Disclosure Regulations in Response to Consolidated Eighth Circuit Challenges

On April 4, the SEC issued an order staying the implementation of the recently finalized climate disclosure rules (Final Rules) in response to the consolidated legal challenges in the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The SEC has discretion to stay its rules pending judicial review and the SEC stated that a stay would “allow the court of appeals to focus on deciding the merits [of the cases].” However, this voluntary stay should not be taken as a sign that the SEC intends to abandon the Final Rules, as the SEC said it will “continue vigorously defending the Final Rules’ validity in court and looks forward to expeditious resolution of the litigation.”

The Final Rules have faced a slew of legal challenges since adoption and the SEC also noted that the stay avoids potential uncertainty if registrants were to become subject to the Final Rules during the pendency of the legal challenges.

Department of Justice Ramps Up Investigations of Private Clubs that Received PPP Loans

As Varnum’s government investigations team has previously discussed, (link) the COVID-era Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) resulted in millions of businesses receiving emergency loans. The PPP’s hurried implementation, coupled with confusion among recipients over eligibility requirements, created an environment ripe for both fraud and the issuance of loans to ineligible recipients. Over the past few years, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has focused on fraud by among other things, opening civil investigations under the False Claims Act and bringing criminal charges against PPP loan recipients who misused loan proceeds on luxury items. But recently, the DOJ has shifted its focus to a new category of PPP recipients: social clubs that may have been technically ineligible for the loans they received.

The opportunity for improper loans to social clubs comes about because of a technical wrinkle in how Congress wrote the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. In this Act, Congress made social clubs (i.e. golf clubs, tennis clubs, yacht clubs) organized under 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(7) eligible for PPP loans. However, Congress incorporated an agency regulation that prohibited loans to “private clubs and businesses which limited the numbers of memberships for reasons other than capacity.” The result is that social clubs that limit their number of members for any reason besides capacity were technically ineligible for PPP loans.

In recent months, the DOJ has issued Civil Investigation Demands (CIDs) to clubs that it believes might not have been eligible for PPP loans. These CIDs are demands for documents and interrogatory answers and often relate to employment records, income statements, the membership admission process, prospective members’ applications, the club’s governance, and membership information. CIDs are expansive and the government can use the club’s answer in future civil or criminal proceedings.

Given the DOJ’s new focus, clubs should review their PPP paperwork now and consult with an attorney to determine whether their loan was properly issued. If the clubs find technical violations, proactively approaching the government through counsel may be beneficial. If a club receives a CID, it should immediately contact an attorney to begin preparing the appropriate response.

For more news on Paycheck Protection Program Fraud Enforcement, visit the NLR Criminal Law / Business Crimes section.

AI Got It Wrong, Doesn’t Mean We Are Right: Practical Considerations for the Use of Generative AI for Commercial Litigators

Picture this: You’ve just been retained by a new client who has been named as a defendant in a complex commercial litigation. While the client has solid grounds to be dismissed from the case at an early stage via a dispositive motion, the client is also facing cost constraints. This forces you to get creative when crafting a budget for your client’s defense. You remember the shiny new toy that is generative Artificial Intelligence (“AI”). You plan to use AI to help save costs on the initial research, and even potentially assist with brief writing. It seems you’ve found a practical solution to resolve all your client’s problems. Not so fast.

Seemingly overnight, the use of AI platforms has become the hottest thing going, including (potentially) for commercial litigators. However, like most rapidly rising technological trends, the associated pitfalls don’t fully bubble to the surface until after the public has an opportunity (or several) to put the technology to the test. Indeed, the use of AI platforms to streamline legal research and writing has already begun to show its warts. Of course, just last year, prime examples of the danger of relying too heavily on AI were exposed in highly publicized cases venued in the Southern District of New York. See e.g. Benajmin Weiser, Michael D. Cohen’s Lawyer Cited Cases That May Not Exist, Judge Says, NY Times (December 12, 2023); Sara Merken, New York Lawyers Sanctioned For Using Fake Chat GPT Case In Legal Brief, Reuters (June 26, 2023).

In order to ensure litigators are striking the appropriate balance between using technological assistance in producing legal work product, while continuing to adhere to the ethical duties and professional responsibility mandated by the legal profession, below are some immediate considerations any complex commercial litigator should abide by when venturing into the world of AI.

Confidentiality

As any experienced litigator will know, involving a third-party in the process of crafting of a client’s strategy and case theory—whether it be an expert, accountant, or investigator—inevitably raises the issue of protecting the client’s privileged, proprietary and confidential information. The same principle applies to the use of an AI platform. Indeed, when stripped of its bells and whistles, an AI platform could potentially be viewed as another consultant employed to provide work product that will assist in the overall representation of your client. Given this reality, it is imperative that any litigator who plans to use AI, also have a complete grasp of the security of that AI system to ensure the safety of their client’s privileged, proprietary and confidential information. A failure to do so may not only result in your client’s sensitive information being exposed to an unsecure, and potentially harmful, online network, but it can also result in a violation of the duty to make reasonable efforts to prevent the disclosure of or unauthorized access to your client’s sensitive information. Such a duty is routinely set forth in the applicable rules of professional conduct across the country.

Oversight

It goes without saying that a lawyer has a responsibility to ensure that he or she adheres to the duty of candor when making representations to the Court. As mentioned, violations of that duty have arisen based on statements that were included in legal briefs produced using AI platforms. While many lawyers would immediately rebuff the notion that they would fail to double-check the accuracy of a brief’s contents—even if generated using AI—before submitting it to the Court, this concept gets trickier when working on larger litigation teams. As a result, it is not only incumbent on those preparing the briefs to ensure that any information included in a submission that was created with the assistance of an AI platform is accurate, but also that the lawyers responsible for oversight of a litigation team are diligent in understanding when and to what extent AI is being used to aid the work of that lawyer’s subordinates. Similar to confidentiality considerations, many courts’ rules of professional conduct include rules related to senior lawyer responsibilities and oversight of subordinate lawyers. To appropriately abide by those rules, litigation team leaders should make it a point to discuss with their teams the appropriate use of AI at the outset of any matter, as well as to put in place any law firm, court, or client-specific safeguards or guidelines to avoid potential missteps.

Judicial Preferences

Finally, as the old saying goes: a good lawyer knows the law; a great lawyer knows the judge. Any savvy litigator knows that the first thing one should understand prior to litigating a case is whether the Court and the presiding Judge have put in place any standing orders or judicial preferences that may impact litigation strategy. As a result of the rise of use of AI in litigation, many Courts across the country have responded in turn by developing either standing orders, local rules, or related guidelines concerning the appropriate use of AI. See e.g., Standing Order Re: Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) in Cases Assigned to Judge Baylson (June 6, 2023 E.D.P.A.), Preliminary Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence by New Jersey Lawyers (January 25, 2024, N.J. Supreme Court). Litigators should follow suit and ensure they understand the full scope of how their Court, and more importantly, their assigned Judge, treat the issue of using AI to assist litigation strategy and development of work product.

Category: Regulatory