Legal Opinion

Armata v. Target Corp.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided June 25, 2018No. SJC 12448PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLenk, J.

*790 **14 In this case, we construe the revised Massachusetts debt collection regulations, which limit how often a creditor may attempt to contact a debtor via telephone in order to collect a debt.

**15 Title 940 Code Mass. Regs. § 7.04(1)(f) (2012) (regulation), implementing G. L. c. 93A, § 2, prohibits creditors from "[i]nitiating a communication with any debtor via telephone, either in person or via text messaging or recorded audio message, in excess of two such communications in each seven-day period." Creditors are exempt under the regulation when they are "truly unable to reach the debtor or…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Augat, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1991
  2. Chiang v. Verizon New England, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2010
  3. Deerskin Trading Post, Inc. v. Spencer Press, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1986
  4. Boazova v. Safety InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2012
  5. DeWolfe v. Hingham Centre, Ltd.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2013

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Nightingale v. National Grid USA Service Company Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2024
  2. LimoLiner, Inc. v. Dattco, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2019
  3. Alper v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2019
  4. Carter v. Quicken Loans, LLCDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2021
  5. Commonwealth v. Credit Acceptance CorporationMassachusetts Superior Court · 2021

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API