A rundown of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases from ACA.
04/21/2023 1:45 P.M.
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 April 18 – 21:
April 18:
Topalli v. Petsmart: Florida Court Finds No Standing for Single Text Message
Citing the 11th Circuit’s ruling in Salcedo v. Hanna, a Florida district court found that the receipt of a single unwanted text message alone was not sufficient to allege a concrete injury-in-fact for Article III purposes.
Continue reading the case summary here.
Imeson v. Nationstar: Court Dismisses Majority of FDCPA and FCRA Claims Against Loan Servicer
An entity that acquired a debt after default is only a debt collector under the FDCPA where the entity otherwise meets the statutory definition by either: (1) engaging in debt collection as the principal purpose of the entity’s business; or (2) engaging in debt collection regularly.
Continue reading the case summary here.
Stephenson-Ortiz v. Simon’s Agency: Court Finds Consumer’s Claim of a Lowered Credit Score is Not a Concrete Harm
A consumer received a collection letter claiming she owed a debt. The consumer claimed she did not owe the debt at the time the letter was sent out and claimed that it lowered her credit score when the debt collector reported the debt to the CRAs. The consumer sued the debt collector, who moved for summary judgment.
Continue reading the case summary here.
April 19:
Luft v. WebBank: Court Finds Consumer Stated a Claim for Failure to Investigate a Dispute Under the FCRA
A consumer claimed that a data furnisher furnished inaccurate information about her account to a CRA. The consumer disputed the date of activity on her account to the CRA and the date was later changed, but the change was inaccurate. The consumer sued the data furnisher for failing to investigate her dispute.
Continue reading the summary here.
Hickson v. Experian: Court Finds Continued Reporting of a Charged-Off Debt Does Not Violate the FCRA
Joining a growing list of courts, an Oregon district court held that reporting a charge-off over multiple months is neither patently incorrect nor misleading and does not violate FCRA.
Continue reading the summary here.
Pascal v. Concentra: 9th Circuit Affirms California Decision That Text Message Was Not Sent by Autodialer
A company that manually added phone numbers to a database and assigned the phone numbers an ID number in a sequential, ascending order based on the time an employee input the cell number did not store or produce randomly or sequentially generated telephone numbers and so did not use an autodialer to send a text message in violation of the TCPA.
Continue reading the summary here.
April 20:
Deutsh v. D&A Services: 3rd Circuit Finds Standing for Alleged FDCPA Informational Injury But Rejects Plaintiff’s Claims on the Merits
The 3rd Circuit held that a plaintiff had standing to pursue FDCPA claims based on an allegedly misleading collection notice but found that notice was not, in fact, misleading.
Continue reading the summary here.
Higley v. Newrez: Court Dismisses FCRA Claims After Furnisher Corrects Report
A court found that a consumer failed to state a claim for relief under the FCRA where his allegations showed that the company corrected inaccurate information in the consumer’s credit report, and the consumer did not allege that the company’s investigation into the inaccurate information was unreasonable or cursory.
Continue reading the summary here.
Byrne v. Oregon One, Inc.: Court Dissolves Class and Awards Remaining Funds to Class Representative
A debt collector entered into a class-action settlement agreement and soon after filed for bankruptcy, which greatly reduced the amount the debt collector had to pay for the class settlement. A consumer who was the class representative in the case moved to have the class dissolved so that he could receive the remaining funds that were meant to be divided among the other class members.
Continue reading the summary here.
April 21:
Konig v. Transunion: Consumer With Excellent Credit After Statutory Violation of FCRA Lacked Standing for Legal Claims
Given that a lowered credit score in and of itself is not a concrete harm sufficient to establish standing for claims based on the FCRA, a consumer who continued to have an excellent credit score and obtained a new loan could not show a sufficient injury to establish standing based on allegations of a statutory violation arising from a company’s reporting information beyond seven years.
Continue reading the summary here.
Riser v. Cent. Portfolio Control Inc.: Court Denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend FCRA Claim
The court denied the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and to amend her FCRA claim, finding that, among other things, while CRAs are not required to investigate legal disputes about the validity of a debt, furnishers may have to investigate and even highlight or resolve questions of legal significance.
Continue reading the summary here.
Maynard v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n: Towing Company’s Lien Sale Did Not Extinguish Creditor’s Loan
A consumer purchased a vehicle and subsequently defaulted on the loan. The car was supposed to be repossessed by a debt collector, but instead was towed away by a different company and later sold at auction to the consumer. The debt collector then repossessed the vehicle from the consumer after he had purchased the vehicle at the auction. The consumer sued the debt collector for violating the FDCPA for attempting to collect a debt that was no longer outstanding.
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.
