anonymous

Daily Decision Recap: ATDS Phone Systems, Bad Faith Claims, and More

A rundown of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases from ACA. Editor’s note: This article is available for members only.

10/07/2022 3:00 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. 4-7:

Oct. 4:

Petro v. Lundquist: District Court Finds Pennsylvania’s CDCA Did Not Apply to a Debt Collector

A Pennsylvania district court found that the Pennsylvania Consumer Discount Company Act did not apply to the activities of a debt collector or asset buyer, thereby dooming a plaintiff’s associated FDCPA claim.

Continue reading the case summary here.

Charles v. TransUnion: Case Remanded to State Court, Consumer Denied Leave to Amend

A consumer alleged that the CRAs were reporting a past due tradeline that was not his. He sued the CRAs in state court. The case was removed to federal court.

Continue reading the summary here.

Oct. 5:

Ricks v. Medicredit: Debt Collector Granted Summary Judgment After Consumer Fails to Inform Hospital of Insurance Coverage

A hospital sent a consumer’s bill to a debt collector without the knowledge the consumer had insurance. The debt collector sent the consumer a letter about their account and the consumer sued the debt collector for attempting to collect more than what was owed.

Continue reading the summary here.

Jimenez v. Credit One: Use, Not Capacity, of ATDS Phone System Determines Outcome of TCPA Claims

Because a collector dialed a phone number from a curated list and did not employ random or sequential-number-generating capacity to do so, the collector did not employ the kind of harmful dialing system that Congress sought to proscribe through the TCPA. Any factual dispute as to the capacity of the phone system to employ random or sequential number generation was not material to the resolution of the plaintiff’s TCPA claim.

Continue reading the summary here.

Oct. 6:

Hart v. Simon’s Agency: Collection Agency’s Investigation of Dispute Reasonable Under the FCRA

A collection agency’s investigation was reasonable where a consumer repeatedly disputed a tradeline by using various misleading descriptions that indicated the debt was not his or that he was not liable for it, even though the consumer admitted incurring the debt.

Continue reading the summary here.

Walker v. EOS: Case Remanded for Lack of Article III Standing

A consumer noticed an account on her credit report and send two letters requesting validation information from the debt collector. The consumer never received the requested information and sued the debt collector in state court. The debt collector had the case removed to federal court and moved to dismiss.

Continue reading the summary here.

Benhayun v. Halsted Financial Services: Court Finds No Standing for Alleged Confusion Over Calculation Error

A court dismissed a consumer’s claims regarding a calculation error in a collection notice because the plaintiff failed to allege that he suffered a concrete injury as a result of the alleged misinformation.

Continue reading the summary here.

Oct. 7:

Yelardy v. Miller & Milone: Confusion and Potential of Being Wrongfully Sued Were Not Concrete Injuries

A consumer who received a collection letter for services that should have been covered by workers’ compensation did not have standing based solely on her alleged confusion and fear of being sued.

Continue reading the summary here.

Dervitz v. ARS Nat’l Services: Court Sanctions Consumer for Bad Faith, Dismisses FDCPA Claims with Prejudice

Where a consumer included in her bankruptcy filing only a vague and incomplete description of potential FDCPA claims, and had a motive to conceal the claims, a rebuttable inference of bad faith arises supporting the court’s imposition of the sanction of judicial estoppel and dismissal of the case with prejudice.

Continue reading the summary here.

Robinson v. Works & Lentz: Court Holds Debt Collector Not Required to Inform Creditor of Dispute

A consumer claimed a debt collector violated the FDCPA by not informing the creditor that the consumer disputed the debt. The debt collector moved to dismiss the case.

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.

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.

Advertisement

Training Zone

Advertisement

Payment Vision

This site uses cookies. By continuing to use our site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Review our Privacy Policy for more information. You may change your preferences on how cookies are stored by reviewing the settings on your browser.

The content on this site is presented for educational, general reference, and informational purposes only; is not intended to serve as legal or other advice; is not intended to be a full and exhaustive explanation of the law in any area; and should not replace the advice of your own legal counsel. By continuing to use our site, you are agreeing to the legal disclaimers in our Terms of Use. Review our Terms of Use for more information.

Friendly Reminder

Get continued access to ACA International’s wide array of resources, which can help you become more profitable, compliant and successful.

Renew your membership today to take advantage of tools you won’t find anywhere else:

  • Discounts on seminars, products, services and events
  • Resources to strengthen your compliance department
  • Industry-specific risk management products and services
  • Participation in ACA’s online community, The Hub
    Members-only website content
  • Professional development and training opportunities, and so much more!

If you have completed your renewal, please disregard this reminder.