A rundown of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases from ACA. Editor’s note: This article is available for members only.
09/30/2022 10:45 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 Sept. Sept. 27-30:
September 27:
Ferriol v. Receivable Performance Mgmt: Court Finds Consumer Alleging Hunstein-Type Claims Lacked Concrete Injury
Applying the decision of the 11th Circuit in Hunstein, the court found that the consumer alleged only a legal infraction or a bare procedural violation and not a concrete harm, and so the court lacked jurisdiction to consider his claim.
Continue reading the case summary here.
Novobilski v. Specialized Loan Servicing: Court Finds TILA Violation Potentially Created FDCPA Violation
The consumers took out a second mortgage, which was later foreclosed unbeknownst to them. The consumers sued the servicer for violating the FDCPA and TILA by not providing them monthly mortgage statements.
Continue reading the summary here.
Magdy v. IC System: 8th Circuit Finds Non-Consumer Attorney Lacked Statutory Standing Under the FDCPA
The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals found an attorney did not have standing to sue based on his receipt of a collection letter that incorrectly identified him as the attorney for an unaffiliated consumer.
Continue reading the summary here.
September 28:
Navarroli v. Medicredit: Applying the Final Hunstein Decision, Court Finds Consumer Lacked a Concrete Injury, Remanded FDCPA Claims
Congress did not appear to intend for the FDCPA to extend so far as to prevent debt collectors from enlisting the assistance of mailing vendors to perform ministerial duties, such as printing and stuffing the debt collector’s letters.
Continue reading the summary here.
Daye v. GC Services: Consumer Who Did Not Read Collection Letter Lacks Article III Standing
A consumer received a collection letter which included a settlement offer. The consumer did not read the letter but did sue the debt collector for violating the FDCPA. The debt collector had the case removed to federal court and moved to dismiss the case for lack of standing.
Continue reading the summary here.
Bangiyeva v. Financial Recovery Services: Court Finds Reference to Law Firm Did Not Overshadow
A New York district court held that a collection letter’s repeated reference to a law firm did not overshadow the letter’s validation information when the letter was read in its entirety.
Continue reading the summary here.
September 29:
O’Neill v. Radius Global Solutions: Consumer Adequately Claims That Collection Letter’s Total Balance Due Was Misleading
The time-barred disclosure contained in a dunning letter was not false, deceptive, or misleading because the disclosures were broad and generic and could not have affected the least sophisticated debtor’s ability to make intelligent decisions.
Continue reading the summary here.
Ross v. Financial Recovery Services: Court Finds Standing in Letter Vendor Case
A North Carolina district court found that a consumer had standing to bring his claims alleging that a debt collector violated the FDCPA when it provided his information to a third-party letter vendor.
Continue reading the summary here.
Maldonado v. Credit Control Services: Consumer Lacks Standing, Case Remanded to State Court
A consumer received a collection letter that she claimed was sent by a letter vendor. She also claimed that numbers and a barcode could be viewed through the glassine window in the envelope. The case was removed from state court and the consumer filed a motion to remand the case because she lacked Article III standing.
Continue reading the summary here.
September 30:
Lansdown v. Bayview Loan Servicing: FDCPA Statute of Limitations Not Tolled by State Emergency Rule
After a consumer’s failed attempt at a loan modification on a purchased home, where the loan servicer tried to foreclose on the house and the consumer obtained a temporary restraining order, the consumer sued the loan servicer for violating the FDCPA. The loan servicer moved to dismiss on grounds the FDCPA claim was time barred.
Continue reading the summary here.
Lara v. Experian: Disputed Facts Preclude Summary Judgment on FDCPA and FCRA Claims Involving Identity Theft
In this case, genuine issues of material fact precluded a summary judgment on the issue of whether a loan company’s investigation of a disputed credit report was reasonable or involved willful violation of the FCRA. The company appeared to have only reviewed its own file in response to the consumer’s dispute, which raised an issue of identity theft, and thereby challenged the legitimacy of those exact documents.
Continue reading the summary here.
In re Argon Credit LLC: Court Finds Standing Regarding Unauthorized Debits
A bankruptcy court found the plaintiffs had standing to pursue their California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claims based on the defendant’s alleged unauthorized debits from the plaintiffs’ bank accounts.
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.
