A summary of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases from ACA. Editor’s note: This article is available for members only.
8/6/2021 10:00
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 August 3 – August 6:
August 3
Chowdury v. Midland: Letters Did Not Imply that Litigation Was Pending
The consumer received three letters that stated her account could be sent to an attorney if she did not contact the debt collector. The consumer alleged these letters violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The court disagreed.
Continue reading the summary here.
Bush v. Optio: Letter Vendor Complaint Fails for Lack of Standing
The court dismissed the consumer’s Hunstein-style complaint, finding she failed to allege any concrete injury that would confer Article III standing.
Continue reading the summary here.
Johnson v. Patenaude: Court Finds Letter Capable of Two Meanings
After noting it must exercise jurisdiction or remand, a district court found a collector’s dunning letters that did not explain whether interest would continue to accrue could be found unclear on this point.
Continue reading the summary here.
August 4
Jamison v. Stuart Lippman: Obligation Arising from Auto Accident Not a Debt Under FDCPA
The consumer was involved in an auto accident. The amount to repair the other driver’s vehicle was attributed to him and the debt was sent to collections, which the consumer disputed. The debt collector sent the consumer’s license number to the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles to have his license suspended for failing to pay the debt. The insurance company later declared the other driver was at fault in the accident and the consumer did not owe the amount. The case was dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Continue reading the summary here.
Barry v. Ally Financial: TCPA Defendant Wins Dismissal
A court held a Telephone Consumer Protection Act defendant was entitled to have claims against it dismissed with prejudice where the plaintiff alleged the defendant participated in a scheme whereby it targeted certain individuals for calls, and thus did not dial the numbers randomly.
Continue reading the summary here.
Guglielmo v. CVS: No Allegation of a “Random or Sequential Number Generator” fatal to TCPA Claim
Invoking the analysis in Facebook v. Duguid, the court found the plaintiff’s claim under Section 227(b)(1)(A) failed because he did not allege the calls/texts were made using a random or sequential number generator.
Continue reading the summary here.
August 5
Jance v. Homerun Offer: Consumer Plausibly Pleads Use of ATDS
The consumer received phone calls asking if he wanted to sell his house. The consumer alleged the calls were telemarketing calls placed by an automated telephone dialing system. The caller moved to dismiss. The court granted a callers motion in part and denied it in part.
Continue reading the summary here.
Grauman v. Equifax: Future Risk of Reputational Harm Not Enough for Standing
The court found that the notation of a loan forbearance on the consumer’s credit report and the associated lowering of his credit score were insufficient by themselves to demonstrate a concrete reputational injury that would confer Article III standing.
Continue reading the summary here.
Gordon v. United Medical Recovery: Collector Wins Sanctions Against Consumer's Attorneys
A court ordered a consumer’s attorneys to pay part of a debt collector's legal fees because the consumer’s attorneys failed to promptly dismiss a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act action after receiving a safe harbor letter.
Continue reading the summary here.
August 6
Worsham v. Disc. Power: Court Dismisses All but Two of Serial TCPA Filers Claims
The consumer received a series of phone calls from Discount Power. The consumer complained of a long list of Telephone Consumer Protection Act violations caused by these calls. Discount Power moved to dismiss the case. The court found that only two allegations could go forward.
Continue reading the summary here.
Ostrander v. Trans Union: Account Reported With “Zero Balance” and “Past Due” Was Not Inaccurate or Misleading
A Pennsylvania district court found that, when read as a whole, the credit information was not inaccurate or misleading as a matter of law and reasonable creditor would not be misled into believing that the account was currently past due.
Continue reading the summary here.
Buell v. Credit.com: Court Finds TCPA Claims Can be Pursued
Rejecting the Creasy analysis, another California court finds a TCPA plaintiff may litigate her claims because the AAPC decision severed the unconstitutional amendment from the call restriction provision.
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.