A rundown of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases from ACA.
05/12/2023 12:05 P.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 May 9 – 12:
May 9:
Konig v. TransUunion: 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.
Bueno v. Experian: Court Finds No Standing Because Credit Reporting Error Did Not Injure Plaintiff
An Illinois district court found that a plaintiff did not have standing to pursue her FCRA claims because the CRA’s failure to accurately list an account as discharged in bankruptcy was actually beneficial to her credit profile. Editor’s note: This is an archived decision.
Continue reading the summary here.
May 10:
Schmitt v. Security National Servicing Corporation: Loan Servicer Had the Right to Charge Late Fees After Mortgage Was Accelerated
A consumer sued a loan servicer for attempting to collect late fees after her home went into foreclosure.
Continue reading the summary here.
Bemero v. Lloyd & McDaniel: Court Finds No Standing for Alleged Confusion Caused by Undated Collection Notice
An Illinois district court held that a consumer’s alleged confusion and resulting inaction due to a collection letter’s lack of a date were not sufficient injuries for Article III standing.
Continue reading the summary here.
Cornett v. Student Loan Solutions: Court Finds Collection Action Within Statute of Limitations
Because a consumer deposited her loan check, she was deemed to have accepted essential loan terms that were explicitly incorporated into the contract by reference, permitting the court to apply the longer statute of limitations for a written contract.
Continue reading the summary here.
May 11:
Bright v. Treehouse Grp: FDCPA Claims Dismissed When Consumers Failed to Demonstrate Defendants Were Debt Collectors
A court dismissed two consumers’ FDCPA claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the basis that a landlord was a creditor and not a debt collector, even though the landlord’s lawyer had sent the consumers a letter saying the communication was an attempt to collect a debt by a debt collector.
Continue reading the summary here.
Okten v. ARS National Services: Court Finds No Standing in FDCPA Letter Vendor Case
A New Jersey district court remanded a plaintiff’s FDCPA claims to state court, finding that she failed to allege she suffered concrete harm as a result of the defendant’s disclosure of her information to a third-party letter vendor.
Continue reading the summary here.
Saggio v. Medicredit: Court Holds One Call Creates Standing Under the TCPA
A consumer received a call he claimed used an artificial or prerecorded voice from a debt collector. The call was meant for someone other than him. He sued the debt collector for violating the TCPA with the one phone call.
Continue reading the summary here.
May 12:
Zoltan v. Credit Collection Services: New York State Court Finds No Standing for FDCPA Letter Vendor Claims
A New York state court found that a debt collector’s use of a letter vendor violated the FDCPA. Nevertheless, the court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff did not allege he suffered concrete harm sufficient for standing in New York state court.
Continue reading the summary here.
Cruz v. Ally Financial: Consumer Did Not Raise a Federal Claim in Complaint, Case Remanded to State Court
A consumer sued a data furnisher in state court. Although the complaint did not mention the FCRA, the data furnisher removed the case to federal court. The court then reviewed the case to see if it had jurisdiction over the matter.
Continue reading the summary here.
Weber v. Goldman Sachs: Reporting Account as Past Due on Credit Report Not an FCRA Violation Because Consumer Was Not Aware of the Bill
A consumer opened an Apple Pay account but did not pay the bills because the notices had been sent to his spam folder. The consumer disputed the accounts status as past due on his credit report, but the late status was not removed. The consumer filed a class action lawsuit against the data furnisher, claiming that it violated the FCRA.
Continue reading the summary here.
Pet Supermarket v. Eldridge: No Standing in Florida for TCPA Texting Claim
A Florida state appellate court found that a consumer lacked standing under state law to bring a TCPA claim for seven allegedly unauthorized text messages.
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.
