A rundown of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases from ACA.
07/14/2023 1:05 P.M.
3 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 July 11 – 14:
July 11:
Church v. J Ritter Law P.C.: Consumer’s Monetary Harm of $7.38 Confers Article III Standing
A consumer received a letter from a collection attorney. The consumer spent $7.38 to send the attorney a dispute letter and sued the attorney in state court for violating the FDCPA. The attorney attempted to have the case removed and the consumer opposed the action, citing lack of standing.
Continue reading the case summary here.
Ritz v. Nissan-Infiniti: Legal Dispute About the Validity of a Debt is Not a Factual Inaccuracy Under the FCRA
A New Jersey district court found that a plaintiff must show a factual inaccuracy in the furnisher’s report to a CRA, not the existence of a disputed legal issue about the debt.
Continue reading the case summary here.
July 12:
Nyberg v. Portfolio Recovery Associates: Ninth Circuit Holds That Hiring an Attorney to Defend Against State Collection Lawsuit is Enough for Standing
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that hiring an attorney to defend against a state collection action is enough for standing. Nevertheless, the court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant, finding the plaintiff’s claims failed on the merits.
Continue reading the summary here.
Hansen v. Mountain America FCU: Data Furnisher’s Information Potentially Inaccurate
A consumer incurred a credit card debt that was referred to a debt collector. Both the creditor and the debt collector reported the debt. The consumer disputed the debt with the CRAs; the creditor investigated the dispute, determined the debt was accurate and did not amend its reporting. The consumer sued the creditor for violating the FCRA.
Continue reading the summary here.
July 13:
Rodriguez v. Awar Holdings: Consumer Lacked Standing, Failed to Plead Concrete Injury
A consumer filed a class action lawsuit against a debt collector for allegedly sending collection letters that contained false or misleading information in violation of the FDCPA. The debt collector moved to dismiss the case for lack of Article III standing.
Continue reading the summary here.
Betz v. Synchrony Bank: ATDS Claim Dismissed, Artificial Voice Claim Survives
A consumer claimed that a debt collector called him repeatedly using an ATDS and a prerecorded voice without his consent. The debt collector moved to dismiss the case.
Continue reading the summary here.
July 14:
Hall v. Smosh Dot Com: 9th Circuit Finds That a Telephone Subscriber Who is Not the Phone’s Primary User Has Standing to Sue Under the TCPA
The 9th Circuit reversed the decision of a California district court, finding that a telephone subscriber did have standing to bring a TCPA claim despite the fact that her son was the actual user of the phone and the recipient of the text messages.
Continue reading the summary here.
Gattison v. Credit Control: Previous Knowledge of Attorney Representation Not Imputed to Subsequent Debt Collector
A consumer assumed that knowledge that he was represented by an attorney was imputed to a subsequent debt collector. The debt collector moved to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim.
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.