A summary of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases from ACA. Editor’s note: This article is available for members only.
02/11/2022 10:00 A.M.
4 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 from February 8-11:
Kelly v. Experian: Furnisher Did Not Violate FCRA By Reporting One Charge-Off Multiple Times
The court found a consumer’s allegation that a bank violated the FCRA by reporting a single charge-off of a single account over numerous months, failed to state a sufficient claim for relief because the consumer failed to show it was plausible that the furnisher’s conduct affected the consumer’s FICO score or his ability to obtain new credit.
Franklin v. Cona Elder: Fraudulent Transfer Allegation in State Collection Action Did Not Violate the FDCPA
A New York district court found that it was not a violation of the FDCPA for a law firm to assert in an underlying state court collection action that the consumer fraudulently conveyed assets to avoid paying his mother’s nursing home debt.
Brown v. Trans Union: Court Finds Data Furnisher Did Not Report False Information
The consumer alleged that the data furnisher reported inaccurate information to the consumer reporting agencies. The court dismissed her claims against the data furnisher with prejudice, holding that, because the consumer cannot establish inaccuracy or falsehood in the reports, her claims against the data furnisher are due to be dismissed with prejudice.
Zlotnick v. Equifax: Consumer Fails to Show Concrete Injury in Article III Standing Case
The court found that the consumer did not plausibly allege that he suffered a concrete or imminent injury in fact, and as such, does not have Article III standing to pursue his claims.
Khimmat v. Weltman: Court Holds Collector’s Use of Letter Vendor May Violate FDCPA
Another Pennsylvania judge found a consumer stated claims under the FDCPA when it alleged a collector used a third-party letter vendor to prepare a collection letter. The court explicitly rejected either First Amendment concerns or Article III standing issues and said the court must apply the FDCPA as written.
Luisi v. Portfolio: No Article III Standing in Letter Vendor Case
In another letter vendor case styled after Hunstein, a New York district court granted a consumer’s motion to remand her FDCPA claims to state court on the basis that she lacked Article III standing.
Asbury v. Credit Corp: Parties Lack Jurisdiction for Letter Vendor Claims under FDCPA
In a case in which both the consumer and collector argued in favor of federal jurisdiction, the court concluded that the consumer’s claims—which related to the collector’s use of a third-party letter vendor to prepare a collection letter sent to a consumer—did not constitute a sufficient injury in fact and therefore the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction. In a footnote, the court identified this case as one of many involving use of a mailing vendor, such as