A summary of this week’s top cases. Editor’s note: This article is available for members only.
5/8/2020 12:30
Each week, ACA International’s Compliance Analysts Laura Dadd and Andrew Pavlik compile relevant case summaries for ACA members. Here is a recap of the cases this week. Members may also submit cases for consideration to our compliance team at [email protected].
Eleventh Circuit finds Consumers Cannot Unilaterally Revoke Consent to be Called
The consumer entered a two-year contract for satellite television services. The contract included an option to temporarily suspend the services for a monthly fee of $5. This was titled the "Pause program." Under this option, the consumer could pause her services for up to nine months at $5 a month. The consumer's two-year contract would be extended the number of days that the Pause program was invoked. The consumer also provided her cellphone number and express authorization for DISH Network to call her using an autodialer. Continue reading.
Court Finds that Debt Collector Did Not Have to Send the Consumer a 1099-C Notice with a Settlement Offer
The consumer received a collection letter from the debt collector offering three different settlement options. Each option stated that she would save an amount over $600. The consumer alleges that the savings offers are deceptive because the letter did not inform her of tax consequences for debt forgiveness over $600. The consumer also claimed that the letter was deceptive because the savings listed in the letter would be offset by any tax consequences the consumer would incur. The debt collector argued that the FDCPA does not require a debt collector to disclose potential tax consequences in a settlement letter and moved for dismissal. Continue reading.
Court Grants Debt Collector's Motion to Dismiss Overshadowing Claims; Denies Summary Judgment on Meaningful Attorney Involvement
A consumer received a collection letter that included, in part, the following information:
"Your account has been sold and assigned to our client, [asset buyer]. This office has been hired to collect the above referenced balance that you owe our client. In making this demand, we are relying entirely on information provided by our client.
Unless within thirty days after your receipt of this notice you dispute the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by us. If you notify us in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, we will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against you and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to you by us. Upon your written request within the thirty-day period we will provide you with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor (emphasis added)" Continue reading.
Fifth Circuit Finds Series of Collection Letters on Out of Statute Debt Violated the FDCPA
A consumer owed a debt for medical services from December 2010 and January 2011. The consumer never made any payments on the debt, and the obligation was transferred to a debt collector. The debt collector sent six collection letters in 2011, and after six years with no apparent collection effort, the debt collector sent four more letters in 2017. Notably, when the debt collector sent the 2017 letters, the letters made no mention of the fact that the debt had aged beyond the four-year Texas statute of limitations. Continue reading.
Visit the Industry Advancement Fund webpage for more case summaries and news. ACA’s Daily Decision is powered by ACA’s Litigation Advocacy and Compliance Teams.
For more information on how the ACA Licensing staff can assist with your licensing needs, please contact us at [email protected] or call (952) 926-6547.