A summary of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases from ACA. Editor’s note: This article is available for members only.
9/10/2021 11:30
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 September 8 – September 10:
September 8
Guessford v. AFNI: Court Denies Request to Stay Hunstein Copycat Case
A collector seeking stay failed to carry its burden of establishing a clear case of hardship or inequity. If the case was stayed until the petition for rehearing was granted, the collector would likely seek another stay through decision of the case, therefore a Mississippi court denied a collector’s petition for a stay.
Continue reading the summary here.
Ramones v. Experian: Consumer Not Required to Plead All Elements of Cause of Action to Establish Standing
A data furnisher challenged a consumer’s Article III standing claiming that he did not state a claim for defamation and satisfy each cause of action under that statute. The court found that consumer only needed plausibly and clearly allege a concrete injury to establish standing under Article III.
Continue reading the summary here.
Dobronski v. Keroles: Court Finds Jurisdiction Over TCPA Claims
A Michigan district court found that AAPC did not invalidate the entirety of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act during the period between 2015 and 2020 when the unconstitutional government debt exception was in effect.
Continue reading the summary here.
September 9
Mack v. Resurgent Capital: Consumer Lacks Standing for FDCPA Claims
Receiving the same validation notice twice did not constitute a detriment required for standing in Fair Debt Collection Practices Act cases because the second validation notice did not adversely affect any interests Congress sought to protect through the FDCPA and instead provided the consumer with another opportunity to dispute her debt if she had failed to properly do so when she received the first letter.
Continue reading the summary here.
Sandoval v. Credit Corp Solutions: Debt Collector Adequately Verified Debt
The consumer in this case received two validation letters from a debt collector and one from a collection attorney. The consumer disputed his debt and requested documents related to his loan including the signed copy of the credit application. The debt collector provided documentation about the validity of his loan but did not provide a signed copy of the credit application. The consumer claimed that debt collectors used deception and unfair or unconscionable means to collect a debt in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Continue reading the summary here.
Song v. Tromberg, Morris & Poulin, PLLC: Communications to Consumer’s Attorney Are Not Actionable
A New York district court concluded that “the FDCPA's bar on false, misleading, or unconscionable debt collection practices does not apply to communications directed solely to attorneys, rather than the alleged debtors they represent.”
Continue reading the summary here.
September 10
Schumacher v. Merchants’ Credit Guide Co.: Website Disclaimer Stating Account May or May Not be Time-Barred Did Not Violate FDCPA
The consumer claimed the time-barred debt disclaimer on the debt collector’s payment portal was confusing because it stated, “Your account may or may not be past the statute of limitations.”
Continue reading the summary here.
Minech v. Clearview: Creditor Not Subject to Contempt
A Pennsylvania bankruptcy court found that because a credit report submitted after bankruptcy discharge was not coercive, it did not constitute debt collection, and so there was no basis to reopen the bankruptcy case or to find the creditor in contempt.
Continue reading the summary here.
Washington v. Fedloan: Reporting Closed Account with Zero Balance and Past Due Pay Status Not Misleading
A Pennsylvania district court found that reporting a closed account with zero balance, yet with the pay status listed as past due, was not “patently incorrect” or “misleading.”
Continue reading the summary here.
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.