A summary of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases from ACA. Editor’s note: This article is available for members only.
10/22/2021 8:30
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 October 19 – October 22:
October 19
Shields v. Prof. Bureau: Hunstein Decision Rejected by Kansas Court
Rejecting Hunstein and following instead the later decision from In re FDCPA Mailing Vendor Cases, the court found a consumer failed to show a concrete injury and lacked Article III standing because the collector’s disclosure of the consumer’s debt to a letter vendor (a) did not cause the debt to become public knowledge, and (b) would have been highly offensive to a reasonable person.
Continue reading the summary here.
Montgomery v. Everest Receivable Services: Consumer Claims She Did Not Have Article III Standing
A consumer received two emails from a debt collector. Each email stated there was a different original creditor on the account. The consumer filed suit in state court and the debt collector had it removed to federal court. The consumer then filed a motion to have the case remanded as well as a motion for attorney’s fees and costs.
Continue reading the summary here.
October 20
Kundmueller v. Pentagon Federal Credit Union: Furnisher Wins SJ On FCRA Claim
The court granted summary judgment in favor of a credit union on a plaintiff’s FCRA claims because (1) the plaintiff failed to show she suffered any adverse effect, (2) the plaintiff’s credit report plainly did not materially misrepresent her overall mortgage payment history, and (3) the doctrine of equitable estoppel precluded the plaintiff from taking advantage of the defendant’s processes to consistently pay late and then objecting to those same practices as constituting harms under FCRA.
Continue reading the summary here.
Gross v. GG Homes, Inc.: Targeted Texts Were Not Sent Using an ATDS
A California district court dismissed a consumer’s TCPA claims, finding the targeted nature of the text messages at issue undermined the consumer’s allegations that the texts were sent using an ATDS.
Continue reading the summary here.
Snyder v. Finley & Co.: Arguing an Unsuccessful Theory Does Not Constitute an FDCPA Violation
The consumer’s husband hired an attorney to represent him in a criminal case incurring legal fees and costs. The bill was sent to collection and the debt collector attempted to collect from the consumer as well as her husband. The court dismissed the case against the consumer. The consumer filed a lawsuit claiming the debt collector violated the FDCPA by attempting to collect the debt from her as well as her husband.
Continue reading the summary here.
October 21
Smith v. TransUnion: Judgment Granted for Defendants in FCRA Action
The Pennsylvania district court found that a consumer reporting agency’s simultaneously reporting a zero balance and a past-due pay status of an account was neither inaccurate nor misleading and so did not violate Section 1681e(b) of the FCRA because a “reasonable creditor” would not be misled by this report. Accordingly, the court granted the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Continue reading the summary here.
Gordon v. Admin Recovery: Settlement Offer Did Not Violate the FDCPA
A New York district court found an initial collection letter offering to settle a debt that also included the statement, “we are not obligated to renew this offer” was not deceptive or misleading under the FDCPA.
Continue reading the summary here.
Wilson v. Rater8: Text Message Not Sent by an ATDS
The consumer alleged he received a text sent by an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) requesting his feedback on a recent doctor’s visit. The case was paused pending the outcome of Duguid v. Facebook. The court found that the consumer did not provide enough information to prove that an ATDS was used to send the message.
Continue reading the summary here.
October 22
Bostic v. Michael Andrews & Assoc.: Hard Inquiry on Consumer’s Credit Report Not an FDCPA Violation
The consumer allegedly incurred a deficiency balance. The debt was bought by a debt purchaser and assigned to a debt collector. The consumer sent a dispute letter with a cease communication request to the debt buyer. The debt collector called consumer to collect the debt several times and performed a hard inquiry on her credit report. The consumer claimed the debt collector’s calls were harassing and the hard credit inquiry violated the FDCPA.
Continue reading the summary here.
Santiago v. Hunter Warfield, Inc.: Court Leaves FDCPA Claim in the Shadows, Dismisses Action Against Collector
A collector who called a consumer and accidentally left a voice message of him singing the song lyric, “in the shadows…” did not violate the FDCPA because the consumer’s conclusory statements regarding being confused or upset, without further evidence of any actual, concrete injury, were insufficient to establish Article III standing.
Continue reading the summary here.
Lueck v. The Bureaus & Stoneleigh: No Standing Regarding a Letter Marked “Personal and Confidential”
An Illinois district court found that while the presence of the phrase “Personal & Confidential” on the envelope addressed to the consumer may have violated Section 1692f of the FDCPA, that alone was insufficient to establish standing without an accompanying injury. Editor’s note: This is an archived decision.
Continue reading the summary here.
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.