A rundown of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases from ACA.
11/18/2022 2:00 P.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 Nov. 15-18:
Adkins v. Sallie Mae: Court Denies Consumer’s Request to Reconsider Evidence Not Submitted in Motion to Dismiss
A consumer claimed that a court erred when it dismissed his claim that a credit reporting agency failed to properly reinvestigate his dispute. The consumer moved to amend the judgment.
Preez v. Benchmark Maid: Consumer Alleges Concrete Injury Based on Filing of Collection Warrant
Where an attorney for a creditor filed a warrant of indebtedness against a consumer without first sending a debt validation document to the consumer, and the creditor did not have a written agreement to document the amount of the alleged debt, the consumer alleged a sufficiently concrete harm to establish Article III standing for a violation of the FDCPA.
Byler v. Pittenger Law: Court Finds Motion to Dismiss on the Merits Was Premature at Pleadings Stage
A Missouri district court denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss, asserting that the defendant’s arguments that the plaintiff’s FDCPA claims had no merit were better suited for a dispositive motion after evidence had been discovered and presented to the court.
Miller v. Westlake Servs.: Court Finds Data Furnisher Did Not Perform a Reasonable Investigation
A consumer claimed that she was the victim of identity theft and disputed the debt with the data furnisher directly and with the CRAs. The consumer then claimed that the data furnisher did not perform a thorough investigation of her claim.
Mumin v. Miller & Milone: Court Finds No Standing for Speculative Injury
A New York district court found that a consumer lacked standing based on her speculative belief that she did not get an employment promotion due to the defendant’s collection activity.
Riddell v. SB&C: Court Finds Itemized Statement of Amounts Due Met Requirements of the FDCPA
Where a settlement agreement proposed by a collection agency provided a detailed breakdown of various costs and fees authorized by statute, the agreement constituted a clear communication that did not violate the FDCPA. An agency’s failure to pinpoint the amount of attorney’s fees included in a requested payment amount violated the FDCPA because it likely would mislead a debtor by giving a false impression of the character of the debt.
Laccinole v. Rausch, Strum, Israel, Enerson & Hornik: No FDCPA or TCPA Violations in Calls Made to a Non-Consumer
A Rhode Island district court held that the LiveVox “HCI” system was not an ATDS under the TCPA, and that calls made to a non-consumer did not violate the FDCPA.
Katz v. CrossCountry: TCPA Claim Involving ATDS Use Lacks Necessary Supporting Detail
For a consumer to allege that a company violated the TCPA by using a prerecorded or artificial voice or an ATDS system, a consumer cannot just parrot the language of the statute. Rather, he must include factual allegations, no matter how minor, in addition to alleging that the company used a prerecorded or artificial voice or used an ATDS system.
Williams v. USAA Savings Bank: Court Finds Data Furnisher’s Actions May Have Damaged Consumer’s Credit Worthiness
A consumer disputed two charges on his credit card, maintaining that he was the victim of identity theft. The data furnisher reviewed the consumer’s information and determined that the consumer was liable of the charges. The consumer sued the data furnisher, claiming that it did not conduct a reasonable investigation.
Fogel v. Enhanced Recovery: Court Finds Collection Letter Does Not Violate FDCPA, Dismisses All Claims
Statements in a collection letter should be interpreted as relating to the relationship between the debtor and the collection agency, not the relationship between the debtor and the creditor. A collection letter that was not misleading within the meaning of Section 1692e is not unfair or unconscionable within the meaning of Section 1692f.
Beard v. John Hiester Chevrolet: Court Holds Ringless Voicemail is a Call for TCPA Purposes
A consumer provided her information to a dealership by phone and through its website. Soon after providing this information, the consumer received several telemarketing voicemails from the dealership. The consumer called and revoked consent for one of her cellphone numbers and then filed a class-action lawsuit against the dealership. The dealership moved to have the case dismissed.
Borden v. eFinancial: A Dialing System Must Generate and Dial Random or Sequential Telephone Numbers to Be an ATDS
The 9th Circuit court holds that “an ‘automatic telephone dialing system’ must generate and dial random or sequential telephone numbers under the TCPA’s plain text.”
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.