A rundown of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases from ACA.
03/10/2023 11:45 A.M.
4 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 March 7 – 10:
Borowski v. Ally Financial: Court Dismisses FCRA and CARES Act Claims as Lacking Private Right of Action
The court dismissed a consumer’s claims that a creditor improperly reported his loan as delinquent and charged off because the CARES Act and FCRA do not provide consumers with a private right of action for claims about the forbearance provision.
Gaker v. Citizens Disability: Disclaimer on Website Did Not Provide Consent to Call Consumer
A consumer alleged that a disability services company violated the TCPA by placing telemarking calls to her cellphone without her prior consent, despite her being on the National Do Not Call Registry. The disability services company argued that the consumer consented to receive such calls.
Ohaion v. Bank of America: Reporting Settled Account as Charged Off Did Not Violate the FCRA
A Nevada district court found that reporting a settled account with a payment status as “charged off” was neither inaccurate nor misleading.
Luce v. LVNV: Consumer Fails to Provide Proof of Injury-in-Fact, Case Dismissed for Lack of Standing
A consumer disputed a debt on his credit report and then later stated he did not dispute the debt and asked that the dispute be removed from his credit report. The debt buyer continued to report the debt as disputed, and the consumer sued the debt buyer for violating the FDCPA.
Chaga v. Simon’s Agency: Court Holds Validation Letter with Two Addresses Not Confusing
A consumer received a validation letter that contained two addresses for the collection agency. Because he failed to dispute the debt or to write to a collector, the court found the consumer did not show justifiable reliance on the letter and so lacked standing to bring his claims.
Bassett v. Credit Bureau Services: 8th Circuit Finds No Standing for Alleged Misrepresentation
The 8th Circuit vacated a district court’s ruling that an alleged misrepresentation in a collection letter violated the FDCPA because the consumer failed to allege that she suffered a concrete injury stemming from her receipt of the letter.
Barton v. J.M.S. Assoc.: 9th Circuit Confirms Award of Treble Damages Under TCPA
Because Washington’s Automatic Dialing and Announcing Devise (WADAD) provision is substantially similar to the TCPA and prohibits the use of an automatic dialing and announcing device for purposes of commercial solicitation, a consumer winning a default judgment against a business for claims based on the TCPA was also entitled to damages under the WADAD.
Stones v. J&M Securities: No Costs and Fees for Removal Based on FDCPA Claim
A court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for costs and fees associated with the defendant’s removal of a case to federal court, because the defendant had a reasonable basis for removal due to the plaintiffs’ FDCPA claim.
Widmer v. Weltman: Consumer Must Assert Exemptions or Immunity to Garnishment, Not Debt Collector
A consumer alleged that a debt collector violated the FDCPA when it garnished his joint bank account despite knowing it contained entireties property immune from execution under Pennsylvania law.
Louis v. Deshmukh: Court Finds Summons and Complaint a Communication Under the FDCPA
A consumer claimed that a debt collector violated the FDCPA by including an allegedly unlawful collection fee in the amount it sought to recover from the consumer in a state court action. The debt collector moved to dismiss and moved for sanctions against the consumer.
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Thomas: Inclusion of FDCPA Language in State Required Foreclosure Notice Violated State Law
A New York state court held that a bank violated state law by including the FDCPA validation notice in the same communication as a foreclosure notice required under state law.
Rider v. Uphold HQ: Court Dismisses State Law Claims Based on Alleged Violation of Federal Law Lacking Private Right of Action
A New York state General Business Law claim is viable where the plaintiff makes a free-standing claim of deceptiveness under GBL Section 349 that happens to overlap with a possible claim under another statute that is not independently actionable. The claim fails where the violation of the other statute by conduct that is not inherently deceptive is claimed to constitute a deceptive practice that serves as the basis for the GBL Section 349 claim.
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.