A rundown of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases from ACA.
02/10/2023 12:10 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 Feb. 7-10:
Feb. 7:
Colbert v. National Credit Systems: Court Rejects Hunstein-Type FDCPA Claims
Where a consumer alleged a debt collector privately transferred information about her debt to a third-party letter vendor or mail house that entered the information into a standard letter, which it printed and mailed to the consumer, the consumer’s claim lacked the element of publicity, did not bear a close relationship to the tort of public disclosure of private information, and failed to provide a concrete injury necessary for Article III standing.
Continue reading the case summary here.
Malanowski v. Wells Fargo: Court Finds Subsequent Debt Collectors Not Required to Send Validation Letter in 1st Circuit
A consumer sued a bank for not providing her with a verification of her debt after she requested one. The bank claimed that it was not required to send a verification as the validation letter had been sent to the consumer years before her request.
Continue reading the case summary here.
Levins v. Healthcare Revenue Recovery: Court Finds No Injury Related to Agency’s Use of An Acronym
A court held that even if the plaintiff could establish that a debt collector’s use of acronym instead of its “true name” violated the FDCPA, the plaintiff failed to allege any harm sufficient to establish Article III standing.
Continue reading the case summary here.
Feb. 8:
White v. Fein, Such & Crane: Court Finds Communications to Attorneys Not Actionable Under the FDCPA
Three consumers claimed the banks’ foreclosure attorney had claimed fees that were not earned and costs that were not incurred in violation of the FDCPA and New York General Business Laws. The attorney moved for summary judgment.
Continue reading the summary here.
Woods v. CACH: Court Finds Equitable Tolling Did Not Apply to Plaintiff’s FDCPA Claims
A Pennsylvania district court held that unless the “equitable tolling” doctrine applies to a plaintiff’s claims, the statute of limitations under the FDCPA begins to run on the date the alleged FDCPA violation occurs, not on the date the violation is discovered.
Continue reading the summary here.
Warsco v. Creditmax Collection Agency: 7th Circuit Overrules Precedential Case Impacting Garnishment by Collector
For purposes of the preferential transfer section of the bankruptcy code, a transfer occurs under federal law when garnished money changes hands, as opposed to the date the garnishment order was signed or the date someone learns of that order.
Continue reading the summary here.
Feb. 9:
Bank v. Digital Media Sols.: Consumer Adequately Pled Use of an ATDS
A consumer claimed that a telemarketer violated the TCPA by sending five unsolicited text messages to his cellphone using an automatic telephone dialing system. The telemarketer moved to dismiss the consumer’s claim.
Continue reading the summary here.
Nuamah-Williams v. Frontline Asset Strategies: No Standing for Letter Vendor Claims
Agreeing with numerous other courts across the nation, a New Jersey District Court held that “‘mail vendor’ theories do not confer Article III standing to sue under the FDCPA.”
Continue reading the summary here.
Clarke v. Client Services: Collector Ordered to Pay Attorney’s Fees for Wrongful Removal
To establish Article III standing required to support removal to federal court, a plaintiff’s complaint must allege something more than embarrassment or stress. Likewise, a plaintiff’s state of confusion resulting from an FDCPA-deficient communication, without any ensuing detriment, is not a concrete injury. A court can require payment of costs and attorney’s fees incurred as a result of removal if the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.
Continue reading the summary here.
Feb. 10:
Skruowitz v. Bank of America: Credit Reporting Charge-Off Status on a Paid-in-Full Account is Not Misleading
A consumer alleged that a data furnisher inaccurately reported his credit card account as “charged-off” after it was paid in full, and that the data furnisher failed to conduct a reasonable investigation after receiving notification from the credit reporting agency that the consumer was disputing this information.
Continue reading the summary here.
Ingram Bey v. Regional Acceptance Corporation: Court Rejects Consumer’s Attempt to Unilaterally Extinguish Debt
An Alabama district court found that a plaintiff’s “unilateral attempt to extinguish her $30,000 debt with a $23 payment” did not amount to an accord and satisfaction, thus her associated FDCPA claims lacked merit.
Continue reading the summary here.
Rocke v. Monarch Recovery Mgmt: Court Holds Collector’s Letter Violates FDCPA Dispute Requirements
Unlike other sections of the FDCPA, Section 1692g(a)(3), does not require a debtor’s denial of the validity of the alleged debt to be in writing. Accordingly, the defendant violated the statue when he informed a consumer that unless he notified the collector in writing that he disputed the validity of the debt, the collector would assume that this debt is valid. On the other hand, the statute does require consumers to submit a dispute in writing to obtain verification or original creditor information.
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.
