A rundown of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases from ACA.
12/16/2022 10:45 A.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 Dec. 13-16:
Dec. 13:
Lodhi v. JHPDE Finance 1: Court Remands FCRA Action for Lack of Concrete Injury
To establish Article III standing under TransUnion, a lowered credit score in and of itself is not a concrete harm, and an improper notation on a consumer’s credit report resulting in a credit score reduction that could cause a consumer reputational and financial harm is insufficient in the absence of allegations of dissemination to third parties.
Continue reading the case summary here.
Gilbert v. TrueAccord: Court Finds Attorney Representation Only Applied to a Specific Debt
An Illinois district court found that in order to prevail on a claim under Section 1692c(a)(2), a plaintiff “must show that the defendant knew the plaintiff was represented with respect to the very debt about which [the] defendant communicated with her.”
Continue reading the case summary here.
Forslund v. Experian: Court Holds That Reporting Debt Owed After Bankruptcy is Not Willful or Negligent
The consumers filed for bankruptcy and stated they would reaffirm they had a lease on a pickup truck. The consumers did not reaffirm but continued to make payments, which were accepted by the creditor. After the bankruptcy was discharged, the debt was reported as current and in good standing. However, the consumers thought their credit report should state the debt was discharged in bankruptcy, just like their other debts.
Continue reading the case summary here.
Dec. 14:
Drechen v. Rodenburg: FDCPA Claims Arising from Attorney Contact Involved Fact Questions
It was reasonable to infer that a law firm contacted a consumer’s lawyer because it knew that the other lawyer represented the consumer, likely from information the law firm received from the collection agency it represented.
Continue reading the summary here.
Simpson v. Revco Solutions: Court Finds Single Letter Sent After Notification of Attorney Representation Did Not Confer Standing
An Illinois district court found that a consumer did not have Article III standing to sue a debt collector based solely on her receipt of a collection letter that was sent after she notified the debt collector of legal representation.
Continue reading the summary here.
Carrasquillo v. CICA: Court Holds Letter Sent to Consumer in Bankruptcy Did Not Violate FDCPA
A consumer received a collection letter for a debt that was included in his bankruptcy. The consumer sued the debt collector for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Continue reading the summary here.
Dec. 15:
Duvall v. Portfolio Recovery Associates: Collector Wins Judgment But Loses FDCPA Action
A consumer sufficiently alleged FDCPA claims where she claimed a collection law firm wrongfully requested various fees in its successful collection lawsuit.
Continue reading the summary here.
Sanders v. ACI: Court Finds Collection Letter Clearly States Name of Creditor
A consumer sued a debt collector, claiming that the collection letter was confusing as to who the actual creditor was. She also claimed the debt collector called her repeatedly. The debt collector moved to dismiss the case.
Continue reading the summary here.
Dec. 16:
Poston v. Baxter: Consumer Wins Default Judgment Against Sham Collectors
Although a consumer won a default judgment against several individuals fraudulently posing as a debt collection agency, the court limited the statutory damages award to $500 because the consumer did not establish the frequency or persistence of the defendants’ calls, and so the court couldn’t make a finding that the conduct was particularly egregious or intimidating.
Continue reading the summary here.
McCain v. LTD Financial Services: Court Denies Debt Collector’s Petition for Attorney’s Fees
A consumer sued a debt collector for calling her after it had been allegedly informed that the consumer was represented by counsel. The consumer voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice. The debt collector then petitioned the court for attorney’s fees claiming the consumer sued them in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment.
Continue reading the summary here.
Scott v. Morgan & Associates: Court Finds No Requirement to Include Sworn Affidavit When Verifying a Debt
A Kansas district court held that verification of a debt under the FDCPA involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed.
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.
