Photo of Joshua Howell

Joshua Howell

Subscribe to Joshua Howell's Posts

Josh is a litigator representing individuals and businesses in a wide variety of civil disputes before state and federal courts. He brings dedication and attention to detail to every engagement.

Contact:Read more about Joshua Howell

New York City’s Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (NYC DCWP) recently released a notice of proposed amendments to its debt collection rules. The proposed amendments are detailed, lengthy, and include expanded recordkeeping and reporting requirements, specific provisions relating to collection of time-barred debt and medical debt, and significant revisions to existing rules governing validation and verification procedures and consumer communications. NYC DCWP is currently accepting comments on the proposed amendments through November 29, 2023 and a public hearing is also scheduled for that same day. Highlights of the proposed amendments are summarized below.

As U.S. consumer solar energy use increases, so does potential exposure under state consumer protection statutes. A recent decision by the California Court of Appeals in the case of Hagey v. Solar Service Experts, LLC highlights the potential pitfalls for solar energy providers and their collections agents.

More than two years after the Supreme Court’s opinion in Facebook v. Duguid, courts and litigants continue to wrestle with the statutory definition of “automatic telephone dialing system” (ATDS) under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The debate centers on footnote 7 in Facebook, wherein the Supreme Court ostensibly embraced the proposition that an ATDS includes dialing systems that employ random or sequential number generators (RSNGs) to index and/or order telephone numbers for later dialing, but do not themselves generate the telephone numbers to be dialed. A recent opinion issued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado illustrates the ongoing controversy surrounding footnote 7 and its impact on current and future TCPA claims.

Last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s denial of preliminary injunctive relief to plaintiffs challenging Nevada Senate Bill 248 (S.B. 248), which places new restrictions on the collection of consumer medical debt. In doing so, the court found the bill neither ran afoul of the First Amendment, nor was preempted by the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) or Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Read on for further analysis.

By way of background, S.B. 248 amended chapter 649 of the Nevada Revised Statutes governing debt collection agencies. Passed in response to the uptick in needed medical care caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, S.B. 248 was designed to protect Nevada consumers from potential financial ruin caused by medical debt by imposing new restrictions on the collection of such debt. Among other provisions of the bill, § 7 requires debt collection agencies to send written notification to medical debtors 60 days before taking any action to collect such debt (Section 7 Notice). The Section 7 Notice must inform the debtor that the “medical debt has been assigned to the collection agency” for collection or that the “collection agency has otherwise obtained the medical debt for collection.” During the 60-day period following the notice, a collection agency cannot take “any action to collect a medical debt.” Voluntary payments during the 60-day period are permitted, but a debt collector must disclose to the debtor that “payment is not demanded or due,” and that the “medical debt will not be reported to any credit reporting agency during the 60-day notification period.” Implementing regulations define “action to collect a medical debt” as “any attempt by a collection agency or its manager or agents to collect a medical debt from a medical debtor” and provide examples of what are, and are not, “attempts” to collect such debt.

Nearly two years after the Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in Transunion v. Ramirez, courts and litigants continue to grapple with standing issues in Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) cases brought by plaintiffs alleging intangible harms to reputation and privacy interests. Prominent among these post-Ramirez FDCPA cases was Hunstein v. Preferred Collection &…

Earlier this month, a district court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed on its own initiative a Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) claim brought by a consumer alleging inaccurate reporting of her charged-off vehicle loan. The court’s opinion in Shelton v. Americredit Financial Services, Inc. provides a nuts-and-bolts analysis of what does not constitute…

An Illinois federal district court recently denied a creditor-defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) case brought by a consumer who questioned why his debt was being reported twice — as both a tradeline with the original creditor and as a tradeline with a third-party collection agency. The court’s opinion…

May a debt collector incur liability under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by seeking to collect a debt under a state court judgment later determined to be void? Not according to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in a nine-page opinion issued on January 11, 2023 in the case of Barbara Lowe v.

A recent opinion issued by the Tenth Circuit serves as further confirmation that plaintiffs bringing Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) claims in federal court must allege sufficient concrete injury — tangible or intangible — to confer Article III standing. The holding also underscores that FDCPA claims predicated on disclosure of debtor information to third…

A recent federal district court opinion highlights the potential pitfalls associated with renewals of unsatisfied default judgments. The case, Sarah Pitera v. Asset Recovery Group Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00255-TL (W.D. Wash.), serves as a reminder that judgment creditors must still tread carefully when seeking to collect on, or revive, judgments from yesteryear. Read on for more…