A rundown of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases from ACA.
05/05/2023 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 2 – 5:
Pucillo v. National Credit Systems: 7th Circuit Finds Confusion and Emotional Distress Were Not Enough for Standing
Affirming the opinion of the district court, the 7th Circuit held that the plaintiff’s alleged emotional distress upon receiving two collection letters regarding a debt that had been discharged in bankruptcy was not a sufficient injury for Article III standing.
Rana v. Equifax: Court Remands FCRA Action Lacking Allegations of Concrete Injury
A New York district court found that a lowered credit score in and of itself is not a concrete harm sufficient to establish a basis for Article III standing.
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 box. 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.
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.
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.
Strange v. GMR Processing: Court Limits FDCPA Damages to $1,000 Statutory Damages Despite Demonstrated Psychological Injury
Because the purpose of the FDCPA is to compensate for loss and not to deter bad conduct, a court only awarded a consumer $1,000 in statutory damages where the consumer offered credible evidence of psychological harm but did not demonstrate he suffered actual, financial damages.
White v. Resurgent: Court Finds Verification Was Sufficient to Satisfy the FDCPA
A court found that the account summary provided by the defendant was more than adequate to satisfy the requirement to verify a debt under Section 1692g of the FDCPA.
Ross v. Forster, Garbus & Garbus: Court Finds Consumer Did Not Prove Settlement Offer Was Not Unfair or Unconscionable
A consumer sued a debt collector for sending him a settlement offer that he claimed was designed to make him take the offer for fear that the balance would increase, when in fact it would not.
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.
Jennings v. IQ Data International: Washington District Court Rejects Hunstein, Finds Consumer Has Standing for FDCPA Claim
Rejecting the 11th Circuit Hunstein decision as non-binding, a district court in the 9th Circuit found a consumer had standing to assert a claim alleging a collection agency violated the FDCPA by disclosing a consumer’s information to a third-party letter vendor.
O’Driscoll v. Arbor Grove: Florida Court Finds Creditors Are Debt Collectors Under the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act
A Florida district court found that a homeowners association and its property management company were subject to the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.
Anderson v. Angie’s List Inc.: Court Finds Consumer Bound by Arbitration Agreement
A consumer claimed that she received telemarketing messages that she did not consent to receive, and that they continued after she texted “Stop.” Angie’s List Inc. claimed that the consumer did in fact consent when she clicked on a button to match her with a home services provider. Angie’s List also claimed that by clicking the button she agreed to the terms and conditions, which included an arbitration agreement.
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.