A summary of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases from ACA. Editor’s note: This article is available for members only.
07/22/2022 10:30 A.M.
4.5 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 July 19 – July 22:
Steinmetz v. Allied Interstate: No Standing for Confusion Related to Differing Payoff Amounts in Collection Letters
A New York district court held that a plaintiff’s confusion and his vague allegations of spending time and money related to the differing payoff amounts listed in two collection letters did not establish Article III standing.
Tua v. Barclays Bank DE: Data Furnisher Not Required to Remove Historical Account Information
A consumer disputed his account claiming that it should not be on his credit report just because he was an authorized user on the account. The data furnisher moved to dismiss the case.
Madlinger v. Enhanced Recovery: Consumer Lacks Standing for FDCPA Letter Vendor Claims
In case you missed it, general allegations of confusion, alone, are insufficient to confer Article III standing, even with allegations that a small group of letter vendor employees may have read a collection letter. The court also issued an amended opinion in this case on July 5.
TD Bank v. Garrison: Court Finds Federal Counterclaims are Inadequate to Confer Federal Jurisdiction
A Michigan federal district court remanded a bank’s state court lawsuit against a consumer on the finding that the consumer could not remove the case to federal court based on his FDCPA and other federal counter claims.
Soliman v. Subway: Court Finds Dialing Equipment Used is Not an ATDS
A consumer received a text message from a Subway sandwich chain offering a free bag of potato chips. She asked to opt out of its advertising, but Subway texted her again anyway. The consumer filed a class action complaint against Subway, alleging that its unwanted text messages violated the TCPA. Subway moved to dismiss.
Huggins v. Lueder, Larkin: 11th Circuit Reverses, Permits Collector to Seek Sanctions
After a district court granted summary judgment to a law firm on FDCPA claims filed by consumers, the parties disputed whether the law firm filed its motion for sanctions against the consumers on a timely basis. Clarifying several cases, the 11th Circuit reversed the decision of the district court and held that the firm could file the sanctions motions after final judgment without violating Rule 11 or its safe harbor.
Williams v. Amerassist: Court Finds Alleged Damage to Credit Report Sufficient for Standing
In a claim related to a contractual dispute over clear teeth aligners, the court found a consumer had standing to bring her claims under the FDCPA because she alleged the defendant’s credit reports affected her ability to purchase a new car and resulted in a higher mortgage interest rate when she tried to buy a home.
Pruitt v. Resurgent Capital Services: Court Finds Consumer’s Claim Lacked Sufficient Detail to Survive Standing Challenge
A consumer received a collection letter that she claimed was confusing because one paragraph stated the debt collector was reviewing her account and the paragraph beneath it stated how the consumer could dispute the debt in writing.
Ghazaly v. First National Collection Bureau: NC Court Rejects Letter Vendor Claims Under the FDCPA
Continuing the dominant trend, the Eastern District of North Carolina remanded a consumer’s Hunstein type claims because the court concluded the consumer’s claims of harm under the FDCPA did not involve a concrete injury.
Tudela v. Medicredit, Inc.: Court Finds Consumer Lacked Standing in Case Involving Alleged Violation of Bankruptcy Stay
A consumer sued a debt collector for attempting to collect a debt after she had filed for bankruptcy. The debt collector moved to dismiss the case for lack of standing.
Williams v. MRS BPO: Collection Letter Clearly Provided the Name of the Creditor
A New York district court found that a debt collection did not violate Section 1692g of the FDCPA, because the letter clearly listed the identity of the creditor, did not name any other creditor, and it provided further clarity by notifying the consumer that “[t]he above referenced creditor has placed your account with our office for collection.”
Tukin v. Halsted Financial Services: Collection Agency Wins Summary Judgment
A consumer did not dispute the assertions by a debt collection agency that its letter vendor did not analyze, modify, or manipulate the data and letters transmitted to it for printing, or that the data used to print and mail those letters was secure and encrypted at all times the account data was in the vendor’s possession. Accordingly, the consumer provided no evidence that his information was disclosed and he failed to show he experienced a concrete injury.
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.
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.