A summary of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases from ACA. Editor’s note: This article is available for members only.
02/04/2022 2:45 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 February 1 – 4:
February 1
Williams v. Portfolio Recovery: Court Finds No Concrete Injury in FDCPA Letter Vendor Case
Transmission of a consumer’s information about a debt to a collection agency’s letter vendor does not rise to the level of publicizing private information to the public at large. Because such publicity is essential to liability in a suit for public disclosure of private facts, the court found this consumer lacked Article III standing to bring suit under the FDCPA and remanded the action back to state court.
Continue reading the summary here.
Richard v. Portfolio: Mistaken Identity Did Not Violate the FDCPA
A Texas district court found a debt collector did not violate the FDCPA when it mistakenly called a consumer’s mother with the same name
Continue reading the summary here.
Rosen v. MLO: Consumer Awarded $100,055 in Attorney’s Fees and $5,830 in Costs
The consumer was wrongfully garnished and had the garnishment order overturned. She then sued the debt collector for violating the FDCPA and won. The consumer now asks for attorney’s fees of $101,190. The debt collector contends that the fees awarded should be no more than $40,000.
Continue reading the summary here.
February 2
Sneed v. Patenaude & Felix APC: Collector Wins Motion to Dismiss FDCPA Claims
The court found a consumer’s allegations were conclusory and did not state a violation of the FDCPA because the consumer failed to clearly articulate the factual underpinnings for her claims, including why she did not owe a debt to the collector and the reasons why she believed the communications in her exhibits violated the law. Without such factual allegations, the consumer’s claims amounted to nothing more than labels and conclusions, which are insufficient to state a proper claim for relief.
Continue reading the summary here.
O’Guin v. Webcollex: Consumer’s Grandmother Not a Consumer Under the FDCPA
The plaintiff received six phone calls from the debt collector attempting to collect a debt from her granddaughter. The plaintiff filed suit and the debt collector moved for summary judgment.
Continue reading the summary here.
Soto v. Financial Recovery Services: No Standing for Letter Vendor Claims
In a Hunstein-styled letter vendor case, a New York district court granted a consumer’s motion to remand his FDCPA claims to state court on the basis that he lacked Article III standing.
Continue reading the summary here.
February 3
Clarke Nabozny v. Optio Solutions: Consumer Lacks Standing to Bring FDCPA Claims Involving Letter Vendor
Declining to follow the Hunstein decision, the court rejected the consumer’s argument that a collector’s disclosure of her debt information to a letter vendor—which the consumer analogized to the common-law torts for invasion of privacy—provided a basis for Article III standing because of the limited extent of the disclosure.
Continue reading the summary here.
Gao v. Campus 150: Inaccurate Credit Report Violated the FDCPA
In a mixed bag decision regarding alleged inaccurate credit reporting, the court granted summary judgment in favor of both defendants on a consumer’s claim for emotional distress damages but denied one of the defendant’s motions for summary judgment on elements of the consumer’s FDCPA, FCRA, and California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claims.
Continue reading the summary here.
Samia v. Experian: Consumer Fails to Prove Furnisher Improperly Investigated Dispute
The consumer disputed his account to the consumer reporting agencies and provided them with a police report and affidavit of identity theft filed with the FTC. The consumer claimed the data furnishers continued to report the debts after they had knowledge of the identity theft. The court held that the consumer had not stated a claim as he did not provide facts to back up his allegations.
Continue reading the summary here.
February 4
Martinez v. Eric D. Houser: Consumer Lacked Standing Under FDCPA Regarding Alleged Unauthorized Settlement Negotiations
The court found a consumer lacked standing regarding her claims that a law firm misrepresented the identity of its employer and was not authorized to do business in New Mexico due to the timing of a corporate restructuring.
Continue reading the summary here.
Walker v. TransUnion: Consumers Fail to State FCRA Claims Based on Zero Balance Credit Report
The court rejected on multiple grounds a consumers’ FCRA claims about zero balance credit reports, concluding that none of the consumers’ credit reports contained inaccurate or misleading information as a matter of law because the credit reports, when considered as a whole, demonstrated to a reasonable person that the account was, is, and continues to be closed. The court also questioned whether the claims alleged provided grounds for Article III jurisdiction.
Continue reading the summary here.
Ewing v. MED-1: 7th Circuit Finds Unreported Dispute is an Injury-In-Fact for Purposes of FDCPA
Appellate court holds not reporting credit disputes is a concrete injury the confers Article III standing to consumers.
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.