A rundown of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases from ACA.
11/09/2023 4:00 P.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 Nov. 7-10:
Nov. 7:
Denmon v. Kansas Couns., Inc.: Court Held Consumer Still Has Standing
A debt collector filed a motion for reconsideration of a previous order, where the court found a consumer had Article III standing to pursue her claim that the debt collector’s letter violated the FDCPA. The debt collector claimed that the consumer lacked standing in light of other more recently decided cases.
Continue reading the case summary here.
Bernard v. Bruce: Court Finds Request for Attorney’s Fees Was an Aspirational Request that Did Not Violate the FDCPA
In dismissing the plaintiff’s motion to reconsider, the court held that the defendant’s request for attorney’s fees in a state court case was an “aspirational request” based on a provision in the underlying contract that allowed the state court to exercise its discretion in granting fees, as opposed to a misrepresentation of legal entitlement. Thus, the request did not amount to an injury sufficient for standing.
Continue reading the case summary here.
Nov. 8:
Howard v. Republican Nat’l Comm: In a First, Court Finds Text with Link to Video Was Not a “Prerecorded Voice” Under the TCPA
An Arizona district court was the first in the nation to hold that a text message inviting the recipient to click a link to download and play a video was not a “prerecorded voice” under the TCPA.
Continue reading the summary here.
Ward v. LVNV: Summons and Complaint Sent Without Case Number Not Misleading
A consumer received a summons and complaint from a debt collector in the mail without a case number. The consumer sued the debt collector for violating the FDCPA by using false or misleading representation to collect a debt.
Continue reading the summary here.
Nov. 9:
Nichols v. Accretive Capital: Court Considers Allegations of Unwanted Text Messages a Concrete Injury
A consumer alleged she received unwanted text messages while her number was registered on the National Do Not Call Registry. She filed a class-action lawsuit against the telemarketer. The telemarketer moved to dismiss the case for lack of standing.
Continue reading the summary here.
Crenshaw v. Portfolio Recovery Associates: Court Finds That the CFPA Does Not Provide Consumers with a Private Right of Action
An Ohio district court held that while the CFPA is explicit in the creation of the CFPB, the CFPA contains no private right of action.
Continue reading the summary here.
Nov. 3:
Natsuhara v. Bank of Missouri: Consumer Needed to Provide Evidence that the Data Furnisher Did Not Conduct a Reasonable Investigation
A consumer claimed he was a victim of identity theft and sent information along with his dispute to a data furnisher in an attempt to prove his claim. The data furnisher asked for more information from the consumer, but he did not provide it. The consumer claimed the data furnisher should have investigated his account further.
Continue reading the summary here.
Bergida v. Plusfour: Court Finds Model Validation Notice’s ‘Safe Harbor’ Only Shields a Collector from Liability Under Reg F
Despite finding that the CFPB’s model validation notice did not provide safe harbor for violations of the FDCPA, the court ultimately held that the mere lack of a date on the model notice, by itself, did not violate the FDCPA as a matter of law.
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.