A summary of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases from ACA. Editor’s note: This article is available for members only.
10/29/2021 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 October 26 – October 29:
October 26
Hines v. Regions Bank: 11th Circuit Denies Consumer’s Appeal – Defendant is Not a Debt Collector
The consumer appealed the district court’s dismissal of his claim without leave to amend. Appellate court affirmed district court’s opinion. Editor’s note: This is an archived decision.
Continue reading the summary here.
Wright v. Keller Williams: TCPA Claims Fail Where Defendants’ Phone Equipment Targeted Specific Individuals
The court found the plaintiffs had standing to bring TCPA claims under the Lindenbaum appellate decision, but the court dismissed certain of the plaintiffs’ TCPA claims because, under Duguid, the definition of an ATDS or autodialer excludes equipment that targets a list of individuals.
Continue reading the summary here.
Stone v. Trans Union LLC: Closed Account with $0 Balance and Past Due Pay Status Not Misleading
A Pennsylvania district court held that reporting a closed account with a $0 balance, but with the pay status listed as past due was not inaccurate or misleading under the FCRA when the report was read as a whole.
Continue reading the summary here.
October 27
Olson v. Armada: Court Grants SJ on FDCPA Claims
Rejecting the numerous attempts by the consumers to raise material fact issues, the court found that the collector presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate it did not violate any provision of the FDCPA.
Continue reading the summary here.
Bell v. Experian: Disputing Disputed Trade Line to CRA Does Not Necessitate Removal Upon Investigation
The consumer disputed the notation on her credit report “account in dispute” with the CRA. The data furnisher investigated the dispute but did not remove the notation. The consumer sued claiming the data furnisher did not perform a reasonable investigation. The court disagreed.
Continue reading the summary here.
Bordeaux v. LTD Financial Services: 1099-C Reporting Disclosure Did Not Violate the FDCPA
A New Jersey district court found that a letter offering to settle a debt did not violate the FDCPA by including a disclosure regarding the possibility 1099-C reporting. Editor’s note: This is an archived decision.
Continue reading the summary here.
October 28
Everhart v. Credit Vision: Consumer Must Prove Emotional Damages
A consumer sued a debt collector for not marking her debt as disputed after she allegedly sent a dispute letter. The debt collector never responded to the consumer’s complaint, and she moved for a default judgment. The consumer requested actual damages based on emotional distress as well as statutory damages.
Continue reading the summary here.
Lewis v. Titlemax: Third Parties Can Bring FDCPA Claims
The FDCPA provides third parties standing under Section 1692f of the law, which fulfills the aim of the FDCPA of eliminating unfair or unconscionable collection practices that may injure third parties.
Continue reading the summary here.
Peraga v. McMichael Taylor Gray: Hunstein Binding in 11th Circuit
Finding the 11th Circuit’s holding in Hunstein to be binding precedent, the court held the consumer had Article IIII standing by alleging that a law firm shared his information with a third-party mail vendor.
Continue reading the summary here.
October 29
Fultz v. Zirpola: Collectors Ordered to Pay $29K in Damages
After collectors failed to answer a consumer’s complaint alleging violations of the FDCPA and TCPA, the court entered a default judgment and ordered the collectors to pay damages, including a $15,000 award under the FDCPA for emotional distress and trebled damages for a knowing and willful violation of the TCPA.
Continue reading the summary here.
Huges v. Certified Credit & Collection Bureau: Collection Letter Properly Identified Creditor
The consumer received a collection letter which used language that was substantially similar to that found in the FDCPA. The consumer claimed the letter failed to unambiguously identify the creditor and failed to specify how the debtor must dispute the debt in writing.
Continue reading the summary here.
O’Neal v. Equifax: Closed Account With $0 Balance and Late Payment History Not Misleading
The court found that reporting an account as closed with a $0 balance, but with a historical late payment history not inaccurate or misleading, did not violate the FCRA.
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.
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.