A summary of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases from ACA. Editor’s note: This article is available for members only.
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 June 1-4:
Murphy v. Automated Accounts: Jury Must Decide if Statement About Credit Reporting is Misleading
The consumer in this case claims she was told her debt had been reported to a consumer reporting agency, but the debt was not listed when she pulled her credit report. The debt collector claimed the consumer did not have Article III standing and that it did not misrepresent the status of the debt. The court denied the debt collector’s motion for summary judgment.
Barnett v. BOA: Court Finds Phone System is Not an ATDS
A district court applying Facebook v. Duguid rejected TCPA claims and found a collector’s phone technology chose call numbers from a pre-existing list created based on criteria from the dialer administrators, rather than by random or sequential number generators.
Teitelbaum v. I.C. System: Letter Would Not Confuse Least Sophisticated Consumer
A consumer claimed a letter stating that a debt collector would report their debt to consumer reporting agencies in the creditor’s name was misleading and implied that both the debt collector and the creditor would report the debt at the same time. The court held that the consumer’s reading of the letter was bizarre and idiosyncratic.
Bristow v. American Insurance Company: No Willful or Knowing TCPA Violation Without Notifying Defendant
To assert a willful or knowing violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, a plaintiff must plead that the defendant was made aware of or notified that the plaintiff did not consent to calls.
Doyle v. Florida Health: TCPA Plaintiff has Article III Standing
Rejecting Creasy line, court found Telephone Consumer Protection Act plaintiff had standing to sue but dismissed the complaint as a shotgun pleading because it lacked detail about the two defendants’ individual actions.
Dean v. Biggs & Greenslade: FDCPA Claims Ordered to Arbitration by Texas Court
A FDCPA litigant failed to provide sufficient evidence to challenge the arbitration agreement contained in her promissory note, and so the court ordered the case to arbitration.
Schultz v. Credit Control: Court Finds FDCPA Plaintiff Must Either Approve Settlement or Seek Leave to Vacate
The court was not inclined to renegotiate a settlement agreement that had already been executed. Instead, it required the plaintiff to either move for preliminary approval of the agreement or seek leave to vacate it.
Lenzini v. DCM: Validation Letter Clearly States Current Creditor
Consumer claimed validation letter was confusing as to the current creditor to whom she owed the debt. Court found that validation letter did clearly state the name of the current creditor and dismissed consumer’s FDCPA claims.
- 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.