A summary of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases from ACA. Editor’s note: This article is available for members only.
03/04/2022 4:45 P.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 March 1 – 4:
March 1
Ahmed v. Richland Holdings: Court Denies Debt Collector’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees
This case involves the debt collector’s request for fees after successfully defeating the consumers’ FDCPA claims. The court found that the consumers’ FDCPA claims, although unsuccessful, were not brought in bad faith. Therefore, the debt collector was not entitled to attorney’s fees.
Continue reading the summary here.
Pollak v. Portfolio Recovery: Federal Court Remands FDCPA Claims to State Court
If a consumer claims an agency’s collection letter was misleading under the FDCPA but the consumer does not allege an underlying harm or risk of harm in support of categorizing the cost of his mitigation efforts as a concrete injury, then the consumer’s claims are insufficient to establish Article III standing. Only those plaintiffs who have been concretely harmed by a defendant’s statutory violation may sue in federal court.
Continue reading the summary here.
Franco v. EGS Financial: A Consumer’s Failure to Withdraw Consent as Required by her Cardholder Agreement Did Not Waive Her Protections Under the FDCPA
A California district court found that, despite the fact that a credit cardholder agreement only permitted the consumer to rescind authorization to be called in writing and by a specific method, the consumer’s consent “cannot waive protection from the practices the FDCPA seeks to eliminate, such as false, misleading, harassing or abusive communications.”
Continue reading the summary here.
March 2
Kline v. Fishman Group: Consumers Lack Standing to Bring FDCPA Claim
Consumers sued a debt collector claiming they were improperly served, and that the debt collector issued garnishments based upon the fraudulently obtained default judgment in violation of the FDCPA. The debt collector moved to dismiss the case as the consumers lacked Article III standing—the court agreed.
Continue reading the summary here.
Anderson v. Wells Fargo: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss State Law Debt Collection Claims
When considering a debt collector’s motion to dismiss state law debt collection claims, the court found that the timing and frequency of the defendant’s calls, coupled with the fact that the defendant continued to call the consumer after it allegedly received the consumer’s revocation letter, permitted the plausible inference that the defendant called the consumer with the intent to harass or annoy the consumer.
Continue reading the summary here.
Lamm v. FMS: A One Cent Misstatement Was Not Actionable
A collection notice listing a $0.01 payment that the plaintiff never made was not actionable because the de minimis misstatement was not material.
Continue reading the summary here.
March 3
Schwartz v. Jzanus: Court Awards Attorney’s Fees in Case Settled Under Rule 68
A consumer requested attorney’s fees and costs after accepting a settlement offer. The debt collector challenged the request, claiming that the consumer was only entitled to the settlement amount. The court disagreed, but it did reduce the amount of fees the consumer requested.
Continue reading the summary here.
Woods v. LVNV Funding: 7th Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment for Collector
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals found a creditor and debt collector did not violate the FDCPA and FCRA when they sought to collect a debt from a consumer who was a victim of identity theft because the defendants sufficiently investigated the dispute, concluded the account did not belong to the consumer, and directed the consumer reporting agencies to remove the entry from the consumer’s credit report. Even if technically false, a statement in a collection letter isn’t ‘false’ under the FDCPA Section 1692e, unless it would confuse the unsophisticated consumer.
Continue reading the summary here.
Finnegan v. CubeSmart: Court Tosses Pro Se Plaintiff’s FDCPA Claims Without Leave to Amend
A New York district court dismissed a pro se plaintiff’s FDCPA claims without leave to amend, finding that he should have been aware of the elements of an FDCPA claim based on his previous history of filing FDCPA claims.
Continue reading the summary here.
March 4
Burns v. Keybridge Med. Revenue Care: Court Finds FDCPA Does Not Impose Time Limit to Report Disputes to CRAs
A consumer disputed her debt through the consumer reporting agencies. The debt collector received notice of the dispute and later reported the debt as disputed. The consumer then disputed the debt directly to the debt collector, who removed the debt from her credit report after its investigation could not verify the debt. The consumer claimed the debt collector’s actions violated the FDCPA.
Continue reading the summary here.
Viernes v. DNF Assocs.: Consumer Has Standing to File FDCPA Claims Based on Collector Suing Without State License
A consumer has standing to sue a collector for violations of the FDCPA based on the collector filing a lawsuit which is unlawful because the agency is unlicensed.
Continue reading the summary here.
Hunsinger v. Alpha Cash Buyers: Dialer Must Use Random or Sequential Number Generator to be an ATDS
A Texas district court dismissed a plaintiff’s TCPA claim because he failed to adequately allege that the defendant’s text messages were sent using a random or sequential number generator.
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.