A rundown of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases from ACA.
02/24/2023 1:35 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. 21-24:
Feb. 21:
Chapman v. AA Action: Court Finds No Defamatory Communication Based on Collector’s Brief Account Entry
Where a consumer claimed a collection agency caused her reputational harm analogous to the harm caused by defamation based on a log entry stating only “Date Updated,” the consumer did not have Article III standing to bring a claim based on the FDCPA because they failed to provide evidence of what information any such communication contained or that it was sent to a CRA.
Continue reading the case summary here.
Felberbaum v. Mandarich: 2nd Circuit Finds No Disclaimer Required When Attorney Claimed Review of a Collection Letter
The 2nd Circuit held that the attorney’s affidavit established that he conducted a meaningful review of the account before sending a collection letter. Therefore, the letter was not required to include an “attorney involvement” disclaimer.
Continue reading the case summary here.
Velez-Aguilar v. Sequium Asset Solutions: 3rd Circuit Affirms Consumer’s Lack of Article III Standing in FDCPA Case
A consumer incurred a debt that was reduced to judgment. After several years, the debt was purchased by a debt buyer who attempted to collect the debt through a debt collector. The consumer claimed that the collection letter sent by the debt collector was misleading and violated the FDCPA. A district court found that the consumer lacked standing. The consumer appealed the court’s decision.
Continue reading the case summary here.
Feb. 22:
Robbins v. Ford Motor Credit Co.: Court Finds Data Furnisher Did Not Provide Proof That Investigation Was Unreasonable
A consumer disputed information reported by a data furnisher about an auto loan she paid off in 2015. The consumer claimed the data furnisher violated the FCRA by failing to reasonably investigate the matter.
Continue reading the summary here.
Lutes v. Stock Yards Bank & Tr. Co: Consumer Lacked Standing to Pursue His FCRA Claims of Double Reporting
A Kentucky district court dismissed a consumer’s FCRA claims for lack of standing because he failed to show that the alleged double reporting by the defendant caused him any injury.
Continue reading the summary here.
Ricketson v. Advantage Collection: Court Holds Recalcitrant Consumer’s Attorney Personally Liable for Collector’s Attorney’s Fees
A district court may require an attorney to personally satisfy the excess attorney’s fees reasonably incurred as a result of that attorney unreasonably and vexatiously multiplying the proceedings or manifesting intentional or reckless disregard of the attorney’s duties to the court. Because a fee award based on 28 U.S.C. Section 1927 is penal in nature, the provision should be strictly construed so that it does not dampen the legitimate zeal of an attorney in representing the attorney’s client.
Continue reading the summary here.
Feb. 23:
Evans v. Merchants & Med. Credit Corp.: Court Denies Both Parties’ Motions, Finds Consumer Had Standing to Proceed
A consumer claimed that even though she informed a data furnisher that she no longer disputed a debt, the data furnisher continued to report the dispute on its tradeline, preventing the consumer from securing a loan.
Continue reading the summary here.
O’Leary v. TrustedID: 4th Circuit Finds No Standing Related to State ID Theft Protection Act
In remanding the case to state court, the 4th Circuit held that a consumer lacked standing to pursue his South Carolina Identity Theft Protection Act claims in federal court because he did not allege a concrete injury.
Continue reading the summary here.
Roger v. GC Services: Judge Denies Safe Harbor in Model Validation Notice Case
A court held that compliance with Reg F does not guarantee compliance with the FDCPA, and although use of the Model Validation Notice might provide a safe harbor for some statutory requirements, a safe harbor for the notice of provided information is different from a safe harbor for the substance of that information.
Continue reading the summary here.
Feb. 24:
Jackson v. Equifax: Issuance of a Form 1099-C Does Not Prove That a Debt Was Discharged
A Kentucky district court found that the issuance of a Form 1099-C, standing alone, did not prove that a debt was discharged; however, the debt may have, in fact, been discharged, thus precluding the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Continue reading the summary here.
Metzler v. Pure Energy: TCPA Claims Allege Enough to Establish Standing But Still Lack Sufficient Detail and Are Dismissed
When a consumer claimed that he received a ringless voicemail, which he determined was a prerecorded message, but did not allege other supporting facts from which the court could infer that the message was prerecorded rather than the product of a live person reading from a script, the consumer failed to meet the requirement that the allegations be plausible and not just possible.
Continue reading the summary here.
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.
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.