A summary of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases from ACA. Editor’s note: This article is available for members only.
6/25/2021 9:00
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 June 21-24:
June 21
Choice v. Unifund: Court Finds Confusion and Stress Alone are Not Concrete Injuries
An Illinois district court dismissed the consumer’s FDCPA claims, finding his allegations of confusion and stress over alleged misrepresentations did not amount to a concrete injury.
Continue reading the summary here.
Davis v. Experian: Ninth Circuit Finds Consumer Plausibly Stated a Claim Under the FCRA
Consumer disputed the status of her mortgage on her credit report. CRA claimed that she did not properly state a claim under the FCRA, because she did not sufficiently notify CRA of the nature of her dispute. District court agreed with CRA and dismissed the case. On appeal, Ninth Circuit found that consumer found that consumer had stated a claim and that district court had erred when it dismissed the case.
Continue reading the summary here.
Bassett v. Credit Bureau Services: Class Decertification Denied
When assessing class certification, the fact that the lead plaintiff and class members all suffered the same injury—receipt of a letter that allegedly violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act—qualified the members, and the fact that the lead plaintiff also might be entitled to recover actual damages under 16 U.S.C. Section 1692(a)(1) was of no consequence because any class member whose injury was not redressed by the statutory award could opt out of the class.
Continue reading the summary here.
June 22
Wilson v. Wells Fargo: Consumer Failed to State a Claim Under FCRA
Consumer co-signed education loans for her daughter. Loans were reported as delinquent by data furnisher and consumer disputed with CRA. Consumer filed suit after the information on her credit report was not corrected. Court dismissed consumer’s claim.
Continue reading the summary here.
Morrison v. Midland Funding: Court Grants Asset Buyer’s Motion to Compel Arbitration
A New York district court found an arbitration agreement in the original agreement creating a debt was still enforceable after the debt was sold to an asset buyer and then reduced to a judgment as the result of a lawsuit.
Continue reading the summary here.
Tuso v. National Health Agents: TCPA Plaintiff Had Standing to Sue
California District Court found TCPA plaintiff had Article III standing to sue but the court dismissed the defendant insurers as without vicarious liability because the plaintiff failed to show that these defendants (1) had the right to control the defendant telemarketers or (2) created a reasonable belief that defendant telemarketers had authority to act on behalf of the insurers.
Continue reading the summary here.
June 23
Walsh v. Mark S. Ricciardi: Court Finds Attorney is a Debt Collector Under the FDCPA
Consumer received a letter from attorney attempting to collect a debt. The letter did not contain all the required information under the FDCPA and consumer sued. Attorney claimed he was not a debt collector and therefore, not subject to FDCPA requirement. The court found attorney was a debt collector.
Continue reading the summary here.
Fifth Circuit Finds Standing for Single Text Message
The Fifth Circuit held that the nuisance and invasion of privacy caused by a single unsolicited text message constituted a cognizable injury-in-fact sufficient to confer Article III standing.
Continue reading the summary here.
Williams v. Schanck: TCPA Plaintiff Wins Summary Judgment
The court found an individual defendant was personally liable for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act where the individual personally oversaw and approved of conduct that violated the TCPA.
Continue reading the summary here.
June 24
Rodriguez v. Evergreen: Court Certifies FCRA Class Despite Individualized Damage Issues
The court granted the consumer’s motion for class certification, finding that individualized issues regarding actual damages had no bearing on whether the class should be certified for purposes of settlement, because the Fair Credit Reporting Act allows for statutory damages.
Continue reading the summary here.
Block v. Real Time Resolutions: Consumer’s Debt Was Accurately Reported
The consumer in this case claimed their mortgage debt was inaccurately reported and requested it be removed and not marked as dispute. The consumer alleged the debt collector violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act because of its willful refusal to remove the false derogatory report after having received clear proof that there was no lawful or enforceable debt. The court found that the consumer failed to state a claim.
Continue reading the summary here.
Kendricks v. Collect Access: Court Denies Motion for Attorney’s Fees
The court declined to award attorney’s fees to the defendants because (1) they failed to show the consumer’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act action was brought in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692(k)(a)(3) and because (2) the FDCPA only authorizes an award of fees against the plaintiff, not against the plaintiff's attorneys.
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.