A U.S. District Court in the Western District of Oklahoma recently dismissed a lawsuit under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) for lack of Article III standing, finding the plaintiff did not actually dispute the debt at issue.

In Lemons v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, the plaintiff discovered a trade line reporting a defaulted credit card account with a balance of $472.00. She called the defendant and asked “How did it get to 472 when the limit was only $300?” The agent said “I’m seeing interest charges on it — that’s probably why it accumulated.” The plaintiff concluded the call saying “Okay. Thanks for your time. Have a nice day.” Approximately four months later, the plaintiff re-checked her credit reports, noted that the account did not indicate it was disputed, and filed a lawsuit that same day. The plaintiff claimed the defendant’s failure to report the debt as disputed violated the FDCPA and asserted she had suffered severe humiliation, emotional distress, and mental anguish.

The court first analyzed Article III standing, which was intertwined with the merits of the FDCPA claims. The defendant provided a recording of the call, and the court found the plaintiff’s inquiry could not be interpreted as a dispute — she asked why her balance was what it was, did not challenge the response, and concluded the call by saying “thanks for your time.” Because there was no dispute, the defendant was not required to report the account as disputed. Accordingly, the plaintiff could not show injury in fact, and her claim was dismissed without prejudice for lack of Article III standing.

The court questioned some aspects of the plaintiff’s allegations. It found her claim of “severe” emotional distress dubious, given that she filed the lawsuit within four months of her initial call to the defendant and the same day she rechecked her report. She had little time to be severely distressed after learning the debt was not reported as disputed, and she had no physical or monetary harms nor any impact on her credit. Additionally, the plaintiff’s attorney had a “virtually identical action” against the same defendant in that court, with the same timing and alleged “severe” emotional distress. The court cautioned the plaintiff’s counsel that it had concerns about the legitimacy of the claims.