A rundown of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases from ACA.
06/02/2023 2:40 P.M.
2.5 minute read
Each week, ACA International’s compliance team covers relevant case summaries for ACA members. Members may also submit cases for consideration to our compliance team at [email protected].
Here are the cases covered May 31 – June 2:
Gebreseralse v. Columbia Debt Recovery: Court Denies Debt Collector’s Bona Fide Error Claim
A consumer sued a debt collector for sending allegedly misleading letters to her in an attempt to collect a debt.
Brayton v. Alltran Financial: Placing 14 Unanswered Calls and Using a Local Area Code Did Not Violate the FDCPA
A North Carolina district court found that placing 14 calls over a one-month period while using a local area code to make the calls did not violate the FDCPA.
Goodall v. LVNV Funding: Noncompliance with State Registration Law Raises FDCPA Claim
A Virginia district court found that registration under state law necessary for state-court collection action and suit brought by an unregistered collector raised FDCPA Section 1692e claims.
Johnson v. LVLV Funding; Credit One: Court Finds Credit Reporting is Collection Activity Under the FDCPA
A California district court held that reporting a debt to a CRA is collection activity under Section 1692g(b) of the FDCPA.
Cruz v. Ally Financial: Consumer Did Not Raise a Federal Claim in Complaint, Case Remanded to State Court
A consumer sued a data furnisher in state court. Although the complaint did not mention the FCRA, the data furnisher removed the case to federal court. The court then reviewed the case to see if it had jurisdiction over the matter.
Ozmun v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs.: Settlement Does Not Entitle Consumer Attorney to Award of Attorney’s Fees
A consumer requested an award of attorney’s fees after he had reached a settlement agreement with a debt collector. The court held that the consumer was not entitled to an award of attorney’s fees.
Pistone v. Client Services: Court Finds No FDCPA Violation for Including Two Different Addresses in Collection Letter
A New Jersey District court found that a consumer did not have standing to sue over alleged confusion stemming from a collection letter’s inclusion of two addresses. Additionally, the court found that even if the plaintiff had shown a concrete injury, her FDCPA claims failed as a matter of law.
Visit the Industry Advancement Fund webpage for more Daily Decision recaps and compliance resources.
If you’ve recently obtained a judicial opinion that might benefit other ACA members, email it to us: [email protected].
- Join the discussion on legal and compliance topics with your fellow members on the Members Attorney Program community on The Hub. Simply log on to The Hub and select Members Attorney Program under the Communities menu.
- ACA’s Daily Decision is powered by ACA’s Litigation Advocacy and Compliance Teams.