A summary of this week’s top cases. Editor’s note: This content is available for members only.
7/17/2020 9:00
Each week, ACA International’s Compliance Analysts Betsy Clarke, Laura Dadd, and Andrew Pavlik compile relevant case summaries for ACA members. Here is a recap of the cases this week. Members may also submit cases for consideration to our compliance team at [email protected].
Court Finds Two Text Messages Not Enough for Article III Standing
A Florida district Court found two unwanted text messages received over a four-day period were insufficient to establish a concrete injury in fact required for Article III standing.
The plaintiff claimed that marketing text messages sent to his cell phone using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The plaintiff alleged he received two text messages over the course of four days, and claimed he was injured by wasting several minutes of time reviewing the messages, researching the source of the messages on the internet, and locating and retaining counsel in order to stop the unwanted calls. The plaintiff argued he was injured by the aggravation and intrusion of the calls.
In opposition, the defendant argued the TCPA claim should be dismissed because the plaintiff failed to properly alleged that an ATDS was used to send the text messages. The court, however, asserted that the plaintiff must first demonstrate Article III by establishing that he “‘(1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.’”
Supreme Court Invalidates Government Exception, Leaves Intact TCPA’s Ban on Automated Calls
The plaintiffs claimed a 2015 amendment to the 1991 Telephone Consumer Protection Act violated the free speech protections contained in the First Amendment of the Constitution by permitting autodialed or prerecorded calls made solely to collect a debt owed to, or guaranteed by, the United States. The Free Speech clause of the First Amendment provides that the government cannot restrict speech based on its content or message. The plaintiffs in this case were political and nonprofit organizations that wanted to make automated political calls to cell phones, and sought to have the court declare invalid the entire 1991 law and not just the 2015 amendment creating an exception for automated calls related to government debt.
The government argued for maintaining the government-debt exception, asserting that the statue draws distinctions between speakers and does not regulate based on content and so is instead content-neutral, and that if this statute was content based, so are all laws that regulate debt collection, such as the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Eleventh Circuit found Two Consumers Did Not Allege Sufficient Harm to Establish Article III Standing
The consumer claimed the three collection letters he received from Midland Credit were misleading and unfair in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because the letters offered a repayment plan while acknowledging in the same letters the collection matters were time barred. “Due to the age of this debt, we will not sue you for it or report payment or non-payment of it to a credit bureau.” The consumer alleged the letters created a risk of harm and sought to represent a class of similarly situated debtors and to recover statutory damages. The Alabama District Court dismissed the action, deciding on the merits that under the facts presented Plaintiff could not show the collection letters were either misleading or unfair. Plaintiff Keith Cooper made identical allegations, and the Georgia District Court dismissed his complaint on the merits, finding the disclaimer language in the collection letter was not misleading.
Both plaintiffs appealed, the appellate court consolidated the two cases, and raised the issue of whether the plaintiffs had standing under Article III to bring a lawsuit in federal court.
Georgia District Court Dismisses FDCPA Claim for Lack of Article III Standing
A consumer sued a law firm claiming the firm violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by producing an allegedly false certificate of service for its Notice of Intent to Introduce Documents (Notice). The consumer also alleged the Notice showed shortcomings indicating a lack of meaningful attorney involvement.
The case stemmed from a lawsuit filed by the law firm to collect a debt allegedly owed by the consumer. As that case proceeded in its usual and customary course, the law firm sent the consumer’s attorney the notice. However, law firm’s notice said it included the particular documents to be later introduced into evidence, but the law firm failed to attach any documents whatsoever. Additionally, the Notice said the documents were mailed on March 5, 2019, for some reason, they weren't actually mailed until March 25, some 20 days later.
Visit the Industry Advancement Fund webpage for more case summaries and news. ACA’s Daily Decision is powered by ACA’s Litigation Advocacy and Compliance Teams.
For more information on how the ACA Licensing staff can assist with your licensing needs, please contact us at [email protected] or call (952) 926-6547.