A summary of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases from ACA. Editor’s note: This article is available for members only.
10/8/2021 9:30
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 October 5 – October 8:
October 5
Deiker v. TrueAccord Corp.: Court Orders Parties to Brief Article III Standing
Because the consumer’s allegations of harm under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act failed to link the consumer’s confusion to a sufficiently concrete injury, the court ordered sua sponte the parties to address whether the consumer had standing under Article III to bring his action.
Continue reading the summary here.
Morgan v. AR Resources: Corrected Inaccuracy Did Not Violate the FDCPA
A Virginia district court granted the debt collector’s motion for summary judgement, finding there was no violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for an inaccuracy on a consumer’s credit report because the consumer failed to show that the debt collector attempted to collect any incorrect amount or that it knew or should have known that its reported information was false.
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. Editor’s note: This is an archived decision.
Continue reading the summary here.
October 6
Cox v. Walter: Collector Wins SJ on Expired FDCPA Claims
Collectors can win summary judgment on FDCPA claims that solely continue previous state court collection proceedings and are beyond the applicable statute of limitations. Actions that are sufficiently distinct from the overall collection litigation and are deemed independent and separately prosecutable have their own statute of limitations.
Continue reading the summary here.
Gibbs v. TransUnion LLC: Closed Account with Zero Balance and Past Due Pay Status Not Misleading
A Pennsylvania district court found that reporting a closed account with a $0 balance, yet with the pay status listed as past due, was not inaccurate or misleading when the report was read as a whole.
Continue reading the summary here.
Hauge v. AmeriHome: Data Furnisher’s Investigation Potentially Unreasonable
Several of a consumer’s mortgage payments were returned due to an error with his account number. The mortgage company reported the consumer’s payments as late after telling him that he would receive a letter stating his payments were not late. The consumer disputed the late payments on his credit report several times, but the late status was not removed. The consumer the sued mortgage company for improper investigation.
Continue reading the summary here.
October 7
Rubin v. Montefiore: Creditor’s Collection Letter Did Not Violate the FDCPA
The court found that when read as a whole, a creditor’s letter did not run afoul of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act’s “false name” exception, thus the creditor did not qualify as a debt collector under the FDCPA.
Continue reading the summary here.
Berger v. Weltman: Collector Wins Judgment on the Pleadings in FDCPA Suit
Because violations of procedural rules do not give rise to Fair Debt Collection Practices Act violations unless there is also a violation of an FDCPA provision, a collector’s act in attaching a contract for sale to a complaint seeking recovery of the defaulted amount did not constitute unfair or unconscionable means to collect a debt.
Continue reading the summary here.
Hines v. Regions Bank: 11th Circuit Denies Consumer’s Appeal – Defendant is Not a Debt Collector
The consumer appealed the district court’s dismissal of his claim without leave to amend. Appellate court affirmed district court’s opinion.
Continue reading the summary here.
October 8
Westerman v. Constar Financial: Court Denies Consumer’s Motion to Remand
The consumer moved to have his case remanded to state court. The district court denied the consumer’s motion as he had Article III standing.
Continue reading the summary here.
Douglas v. TD Bank: “Telltale Pause” Supports TCPA Claims
The court found the plaintiff’s allegation of a “telltale pause” was a sufficient fact allegation to support claim that the defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by using random or sequential number generation.
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.
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.