A rundown of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases from ACA. Editor’s note: This article is available for members only.
10/14/2022 2:25 P.M.
3.5 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 Oct. 11-14:
Oct. 11:
Rubin v. Transworld Systems: Court Grants Collector’s Motion to Remand Letter Vendor Case
Following the lead of multiple other decisions in this district, the court rejected a consumer’s letter vendor claims against a collection agency and remanded the action to state court. The court found the claims were insufficient to establish Article III standing due to lack of inherent publicity in the analogous tort of public disclosure of private facts.
Continue reading the case summary here.
Higdon v. Francy Law Firm: Whether Conduct is Annoying, Abusive, or Harassing Is a “Fact Question for a Jury”
The court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, holding that “[w]hether conduct is annoying, abusive, or harassing generally is a fact question for the jury.”
Continue reading the summary here.
Taylor v. IC System: Court Allows Credit Reporting Claim to Proceed
A consumer noticed a debt on his credit report and discussed it with the debt collector. He received information from the debt collector that the debt belonged to someone else, and the debt collector continued to report the debt and did not mark it as disputed. The consumer disputed the debt with the CRA, filed a lawsuit, and the debt collector moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
Continue reading the summary here.
Oct. 12:
Jenkins v. Ltd. Fin. Servs: Court Finds No Standing Without Publication in Letter Vendor Case
In a case involving letter vendor claims, the court found that the consumer lacked standing because failed to properly allege that his information was made available to the public and caused harm under the public disclosure tort.
Continue reading the summary here.
Remler v. Cona Elder Law: Court Permitted FDCPA Claims to Continue
A law firm that sought to recover a medical debt from a consumer, despite knowing that the medical facility received notice from the insurance company that it would be correcting an overbilling, violated the FDCPA.
Continue reading the summary here.
Oct. 13:
Soriano v. Experian: Defendant Delays, Loses Right to Arbitrate FCRA Claims
Although federal policy favors arbitration, a credit reporting agency waived its right to arbitration because it provided no fair notice of its request to the consumer, and instead waited nearly six months before raising its request for arbitration.
Continue reading the summary here.
Moore v. Mountain Run Solutions: Court Denies Fees for Consumer’s Attorney
A consumer won a default judgment, which included statutory and punitive damages. The consumer’s attorney filed a petition for attorney’s fees, but the court denied the request because it did not include enough evidence for the court to determine the proper amount of fees.
Continue reading the summary here.
Lahu v. IC System: No Standing for Hypothetical Least Sophisticated Consumer’s Injury
A New Jersey district court found a consumer lacked standing to sue over allegedly false information in a collection notice because she did not allege an injury-in-fact, rather that the letter would confuse the least sophisticated consumer.
Continue reading the summary here.
Oct. 14:
Lee v. Experian: Consumer Failed to State a Claim Under FCRA
A consumer disputed three tradelines on her credit report with a CRA. She claimed the CRA did not follow reasonable procedures when investigating her dispute.
Continue reading the summary here.
McCoy v. SC Tiger Manor: Collector Defeats Claims of Inaccurate Reporting
A collection agency won claims based on alleged violations of the FDCPA and the FCRA because the plaintiff failed to put forward any evidence that countered the agency’s proof that the debt involved a business rather than a consumer account, and showing that the agency properly verified and investigated the account.
Continue reading the summary here.
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.
- ACA International accepts general contributions from members wanting to support the Industry Advancement Fund. Note: Contributions made to the general fund are in addition to the contributions set aside from the mandatory IAF assessment members pay with their dues. Donations to ACA International’s IAF are not tax deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes but may be partially deductible as a business expense. Please log in to ACA’s website here to learn more about how to contribute.
To receive notifications about ACA content—including member alerts, upcoming events and new products—text ALERTS to 96997. Message and data rates may apply. Message frequency will vary. To opt-out at any time, reply STOP to any message we send.