This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
By Zachary K. Dunn In ACA International v. Federal Communications Commission , 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 6535 (2018), the DC Circuit rejected a series of challenges to the FCC’s 2015 Declaratory Ruling brought by Rite-Aid related to the partial-exemption to the prior-consent requirement for healthcare related calls. The Court rejected two separate arguments: first, that the Declaratory Ruling conflicts with HIPPA; and second, that the Declaratory Ruling’s exemption for “certain healthcare calls” but
I received 2 collection letters for my son with my name on them. He doesn't live with me. When I looked at my credit report they put the to bills for in collections under me.
Last week, the Second Circuit attempted to clarify its position emanating from its decisions in Avila v. Riexinger & Assocs, 817 F.3d 72 (2 nd Cir. 2016) and Carlin v. Davidson Fink LLP, 852 F.3d 207 (2 nd Cir. 2017). Taylor v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc., No. 17-1650 (2 nd Cir. Mar. 29, 2017). In Taylor, the issue before the court was whether a collection notice violates 15 U.S.C. §1692e when it fails to disclose that interest or fees are not currently accruing on a debt.
The Seventh Circuit recently joined the Fourth and Ninth Circuits in holding that a debt collection discharges its obligation as to debt validation by verifying that its letters accurately conveyed the information received from the creditor. Walton v. EOS CCA, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 7075 (7 th Cir. Mar. 21, 2018). In Walton, AT&T forwarded the consumer’s account to EOS CCA for collection.
AI is reshaping industries, yet finance remains one of the slowest adopters. Concerns over compliance, legacy systems, and data silos have made finance teams hesitant to embrace AI-driven transformation. But delaying adoption isn’t just about efficiency—it’s about staying competitive in a rapidly evolving landscape. How can finance leaders overcome these challenges and start leveraging AI effectively?
Input your email to sign up, or if you already have an account, log in here!
Enter your email address to reset your password. A temporary password will be e‑mailed to you.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 19,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content