Photo of David N. Anthony

David Anthony handles litigation against consumer financial services businesses and other highly regulated companies across the United States. He is a strategic thinker who balances his extensive litigation experience with practical business advice to solve companies’ hardest problems.

In Holden v. Holiday Inn Club Vacations Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently upheld a consolidated district court ruling granting summary judgment for the defendant furnisher in two Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) actions centering on whether the consumers’ disputes with the furnisher were actionable. While the Eleventh Circuit declined to impose a bright-line rule that only FCRA claims based on factual disputes are actionable, it affirmed the district courts’ summary judgment ruling, finding that for consumer disputes to be actionable against furnishers, the alleged inaccuracy must be “objectively and readily verifiable.”

In Soliman v. Subway Franchisee Advertising Fund Trust, Ltd, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending a text message to her cell phone using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) and which utilized an “artificial or prerecorded voice.” The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to dismiss the case because the TCPA did not apply.

On May 2, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) released two sets of guidance addressing the applicability of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) to two areas where, in the agency’s view, algorithmic processes and artificial intelligence (AI) pose particular concerns: tenant screening and advertising of housing opportunities through online platforms that use targeted ads. The purpose of HUD’s guidance is to make housing providers, tenant screening companies, advertisers, and online platforms aware that the FHA applies to tenant screening and housing advertising, including when algorithms and AI are used to perform those functions.

According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) were down for the month of March while court filings under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were up. Year-to-date everything is

In an unpublished decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed the decision of a California district court finding that the furnisher conducted a reasonable investigation under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) when it updated its credit reporting to more accurately reflect the plaintiffs’ payment history.

Earlier this week, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) released its second report detailing changes in the credit reporting of medical debts made by the three national consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) to reduce the number of medical bills on credit reports. Overall, the CFPB found the changes in the reporting of medical collections have led to a significant reduction in the number of consumers with tradelines relating to medical debts on their consumer reports. However, the total balances of medical collections on consumer reports only fell by 38% nationwide.

A U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Missouri recently granted a defendant’s summary judgment motion in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) case, holding that the plaintiff lacked standing because she did not show an injury in fact traceable to the defendant’s alleged consumer reporting.

Recently, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) submitted letters to senators in Connecticut and California supporting their proposals to prohibit medical debt reporting.

In March, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss a claim that the defendant violated § 1692e(8) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when it failed to report a debt as disputed. Specifically, the court determined it could disregard the allegations in the complaint that the plaintiff had disputed the debt during a telephone call, because the defendant attached the transcript of the call to the motion to dismiss that contradicted the plaintiff’s allegations.