Each week, ACA International’s compliance team covers relevant case summaries for ACA members. Here’s a rundown of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases we’ve covered.
01/12/2024 3:20 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 Jan. 9-12:
Jan. 9:
Spitz v. Caine & Weiner Company: No Standing for Validation Notice Listing Two Balances
A New York district court held that a consumer failed to allege she suffered a concrete injury from her receipt of a validation notice that listed two different balances in the notice’s itemization table.
Continue reading the case summary here.
Hoganberry v. Experian: Claims of ID Theft Sufficient to Stop Motion to Compel Arbitration
A consumer sued a group of CRAs and banks under the FCRA for sharing and reporting information related to several accounts that he alleged were the product of identity theft. One of the defendants in this action contends that the consumer’s claims are subject to a mandatory arbitration clause and moved to compel arbitration and stay this action while the arbitration is pending.
Continue reading the case summary here.
Jan. 10:
Braver v. Diversified Adjustment Service: Court Finds No Standing for Claims Related to Undated MVN
A New York district court dismissed a consumer’s FDCPA claims, finding that he failed to allege he suffered a concrete injury resulting from the receipt of a model validation notice that lacked a date showing when the form was generated.
Continue reading the summary here.
Lardizabal v. American Express National Bank: Court Finds Attorney’s Fees and Costs Were Not Implied in Settlement Offer
A consumer accepted a settlement offer from a data furnisher to end the FCRA litigation they were engaged in. After the consumer accepted the offer, he filed a motion for attorney’s fees. The data furnisher opposed the motion, stating that the consumer knew the settlement amount included attorney’s fees.
Continue reading the summary here.
Jan. 11:
Pace v. Link Debt Recovery: Whether Debt Collector Was Licensed While Attempting to Collect is a Question of Fact
Two consumers appealed the district court’s decision dismissing their claims that a debt collector was not licensed when it sued them in state court.
Continue reading the summary here.
Sanders v. American Coradius International: Court Finds 16 Calls Over 30 Days Did Not Violate the FDCPA
A New Jersey district court found that 16 calls over a 30-day period did not rise to harassment under Section 1692d(f) of the FDCPA.
Continue reading the summary here.
Jan. 12:
Brown v. Smith Rouchon & Assocs.: Regulation F Does Not Apply Retroactively
A debt collector filed a motion for the court to reconsider its previous motions holding that a consumer had stated a claim under the FDCPA. The debt collector claimed that since Regulation F clarified the FDCPA, the consumer did not state a claim.
Continue reading the summary here.
Crawford v. The Law Offices of Brett Borland: Court Dismisses FDCPA Claim for Lack of Standing
The court dismissed the plaintiff’s FDCPA and other claims for lack of standing because the plaintiff never alleged any cognizable injuries such as that a third party viewed his debt information, that it was reported to any CRAs, that his credit score suffered, or that he was denied credit.
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.