A rundown of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases from ACA.
12/09/2022 12:10 P.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. 6 – 9:
Dec. 6:
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.
Sanchez v. JP Morgan Chase Bank: Court Denies Consumer’s FCRA Claims
A consumer sued a data furnisher because a tradeline on her credit report showed that a debt that had been settled was being reported as 120 days delinquent, and that it was settled for less than the full balance.
Continue reading the case summary here.
Dec. 7:
Vazzano v. Receivable Management Services: Court Decides Not to Alter Decision in Wake of 5th Circuit’s Decision in Perez
Description: A court in the Northern District of Texas reviewed a ruling that was decided shortly before a 5th Circuit decision came out, holding that the consumer did not have standing to sue under the FDCPA. The court requested supplemental briefing on whether it should alter or amend Vazzano.
Continue reading the summary here.
Oyathelemi v. L.J. Ross: Court Grants Summary Judgment for Collector on Multiple FCRA and FDCPA Claims
When a furnisher is investigating a dispute, the FCRA does not require perfection, only a reasonable response. If a consumer only made vague allegations of discrepancies in her account statement, did not indicate the underlying reason why the charges on the bill were possibly not incurred by her, and did not articulate what the perceived inaccuracies on the bills were, the consumer’s communications did not require the collection agency to conduct a more searching inquiry.
Continue reading the summary here.
Warden v. Tschetter Sulzer: Court Finds Law Firm Representing Landlords Was a Debt Collector
A Colorado district court found that a law firm’s use of a “Stipulation and Advisement” regarding potential eviction was a communication subject to the FDCPA.
Continue reading the summary here.
Dec. 8:
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 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.
Escano v. RCI: Magistrate Recommended Dismissal of TCPA Claims Lacking Private Right of Action, Other Claims to Continue
The technical and procedural standards specific to automated telephone calls that are included in the TCPA at Section 227(d) and in its accompanying regulation 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(b) do not provide a private right of action or a statutory-damages provision, and such claims will be dismissed.
Continue reading the summary here.
Dec. 9:
Reimer v. LexisNexis: Court Dismissed FCRA Claims Involving Technical Violation and Lacking Sufficient Harm
In the credit reporting context, the Supreme Court has stated in the Spokeo decision that not all inaccuracies cause harm or present any material risk of harm. Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the demands of Article III standing by alleging a bare procedural violation resulting in no harm.
Continue reading the summary here.
Monroe v. Grow Financial FCU: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss, Case Too Fact-Specific
A consumer claimed that a data furnisher did not perform a reasonable investigation when she disputed a charged-off overdraft on her checking account. The data furnisher moved to dismiss.
Continue reading the summary here.
Parker v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., & Equifax Information Services, LLC: CRAs Are Not Required to Investigate Legal Disputes
An Illinois district court held that CRAs are not required as part of their reinvestigation duties to render a legal opinion on the legal validity of a consumer’s alleged debt.
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.
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.
