A summary of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases from ACA. Editor’s note: This article is available for members only.
07/01/2022 9:30 A.M.
4.5 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 June 28 – July 1:
June 28:
Rogers v. LVNV Funding: Court Dismisses FDCPA Claims That Lack a Concrete Injury
A consumer bringing claims under the FDCPA that did not allege the claimed risk of economic harm ever materialized, or that she was independently harmed by her exposure to these risks, did not suffer a concrete injury and lacked Article III standing to bring her claim in federal court.
Continue reading the summary here.
Van Note v. Specialized Loan Servicing: Rental Property Was Not a Debt Under the FDCPA
A New Jersey district dismissed a plaintiff’s FDCPA claims because the underlying debt was a mortgage loan on a property that the plaintiff was renting to a tenant and was therefore not a debt subject to the FDCPA.
Continue reading the summary here.
Lara v. Experian: Court Finds Data Furnisher Did Not Reasonably Investigate Dispute
A consumer claimed that a mortgage was fraudulently opened in his name. The consumer filed a police report and disputed the debt with a CRA. The data furnisher investigated the claim and determined that its reporting of the debt was accurate. The consumer sued the data furnisher for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Continue reading the summary here.
June 29:
Naimi-Yazdi v. JPMorgan Chase: Court Dismisses FCRA Claim as Information Reported Was Not Misleading
A consumer claimed that a data furnisher reported false information about her account. The consumer claimed she disputed the debt with the CRAs that forwarded her dispute to the data furnisher, but the data furnisher did not correct her report. She sued the data furnisher for violating the FCRA.
Continue reading the summary here.
Collins v. Sonic: One Text After Stop Message Doesn’t State TCPA Claim
The TCPA requires an entity to comply with the consumer’s request not to be called. In this case, a consumer failed to state a plausible claim of violation because the consumer did not allege that he made such a request prior to a text. Additionally, there was no apparent reason alleged that the consumer should have been on such a list at the time.
Continue reading the summary here.
Ishmael v. GM Fin. Inc: Court Finds FDCPA Did Not Apply to Repossession Agents
A Pennsylvania district court dismissed a pro se consumer’s FDCPA claims against a repossession agency because the repossession agent had a present right to take possession of the vehicle due to the consumer’s breach of contract.
Continue reading the summary here.
June 30:
Rodriguez v. Cascade: Court Denies Consumer’s Request for Incentive Damages in FDCPA Case
When a consumer sought court approval of an award of attorney’s fees and damages included in the settlement of class-action claims under the FDCPA, the court rejected the consumer’s request for an award of incentive damages greater than the standard $1,000 permitted in statutory damages.
Continue reading the summary here.
Gross v. TransUnion: Consumer Claims Lack of Article III Standing, Court Agrees
A consumer sued a CRA in state court for reporting false information and not correcting the credit report after he notified the CRA of the alleged error. The CRA had the case removed to federal court. The consumer moved to have the case remanded to state court for lack of Article III standing.
Continue reading the summary here.
Snyder v. Finley & Co: 6th Circuit Finds Lawsuit Against Spouse for “Necessaries” Violated the FDCPA
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals found that a lawsuit filed against a consumer’s spouse for “necessaries” violated the FDCPA because the state’s law on the issue of spousal obligations requires a plaintiff first seek satisfaction of the claim from the consumer before pursing the consumer’s spouse.
Continue reading the summary here.
July 1:
Gowens v. Credit Control: Multiple Account Numbers On Collection Letters Potentially Confusing to Consumer
A consumer received four letters from a debt collector attempting to collect two different debts. The letters were mostly identical as to the information pertaining to the debts, except the field labeled “Our Acct.#” had a different number on each letter, even when the letters referred to the same debt. The consumer alleged that this confused her and led her to believe the debt collector was trying to collect the debts more than once.
Continue reading the summary here.
Samano v. LVNV Funding, LLC: Court Finds Failing to Remove Dispute Did Not Violate the FDCPA
A court dismissed a consumer’s claim that a debt collector violated the FDCPA by continuing to report a debt as disputed, despite the fact that the consumer informed the debt collector that he no longer disputed the debt.
Continue reading the summary here.
Evans-Ennis v. Shapiro & Denardo: Court Denies Motion for Reconsideration
A court found a consumer raised a sufficient claim of violation of the FDCPA with respect to language in a collection letter that varied from the Reg F model validation notice.
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.
To receive notifications about ACA content—including member alerts, upcoming events and new products—text ALERTS to 96997. Message and data rates may apply. Message frequency will vary. To opt-out at any time, reply STOP to any message we send.