their eligibility for the HAMP, including in-person contacts at the servicer’s discretion. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, HAMP Supplemental Directive No. 09-01, at 13-14 (Apr. 6, 2009) (emphasis added) (reproduced at Docs. 37-7, 37-8). Violations of agency directives like these can be a hallmark of unfairness under the ICFA. See 815 ILCS 505/2 (“In construing this section,” which addresses “unfair ... acts or practices,” “consideration shall be given to the interpretation of the Federal Trade Commission and the federal courts relating to Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act”); Robinson, 266 Ill.Dec. 879, 775 N.E.2d at 960-61; Ornelas, 1988 WL 102232, at *1; see also Morris v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., 775 F.Supp.2d 255, 259-62, 2011 WL 1226974, at *3-6 (D.Mass. Apr. 4, 2011) (<HOLDING>). The complaint alleges not only that
holding that medical expenses were within meaning of ascertainable loss under that states consumer protection statute holding that the most analogous claim for relief under new york law is a claim for employment discrimination holding that hamp violations can predicate claim under analogous massachusetts consumer protection statute holding that this statute was the most analogous state statute for purposes of erisa action filed in utah holding that the colorado consumer protection act allowed suit against agents as individuals