A rundown of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases from ACA.
08/11/2023 9:00 A.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 Aug. 8-11:
Sweeney v. Holt & Young: Plaintiffs Lacked Article III Standing Because They Failed to Allege Any Harm Stemming From Their Receipt of Collection Letters
A Texas district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims that they received false and misleading collection letters because the plaintiffs failed to identify how they were harmed by the letters.
Church v. J Ritter Law P.C.: Consumer’s Monetary Harm of $7.38 Confers Article III Standing
A consumer received a letter from a collection attorney. The consumer spent $7.38 to send the attorney a dispute letter and sued the attorney in state court for violating the FDCPA. The attorney attempted to have the case removed and the consumer opposed the action, citing lack of standing.
Continue reading the case summary here.
Shoemaker v. American Technology Services: TCPA Was Not Rendered Unenforceable by AAPC
A Pennsylvania district court held that plaintiffs have standing to raise TCPA claims arising during 2015-2020 when the government exception was still in effect because AAPC did not render the entirety of the TCPA unconstitutional.
JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Alvarez: Court Denied Consumer’s Petition to Remove Case from State Court
A consumer facing an unlawful detainer action petitioned to remove the case from state court to federal court.
Continue reading the summary here.
Trim v. Reward Zone: 9th Circuit Finds a Text Message is Not an Artificial or Prerecorded Voice as Contemplated by the TCPA
The 9th Circuit held that the terms “artificial or prerecorded voice” as used in Section 227(a) of the TCPA are intended to mean an actual, audible sound and are not intended to include a metaphorical component such as a medium of expression like text messaging.
Rosa v. Mandarich L. Group: Sending Consumer Identity Theft Affidavit Does Not Violate the FDCPA
A consumer received a collection letter in response to an identity theft notification. The consumer claimed that the letter was false and misleading, and insinuated it was from a government agency. The consumer sued, and the debt collector moved to dismiss the case.
Murray v. Partners: Court Finds Case Brought in Bad Faith
A consumer accused a debt collector of sending her a collection letter that contained several FDCPA violations. The debt collector moved to dismiss the case.
Glover v. Ocwen Loan Servicing: Court Finds ‘Speedpay Fees’ Violated the FDCPA
A Florida district court held that a loan servicer’s use of “Speedpay fees” violated the FDCPA, but the court declined to award statutory damages for what it described as a “relatively small and voluntary convenience fee in a disputed area of law.”
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.