Photo of Louis Manetti, Jr.

Louis Manetti, Jr.

Subscribe to Louis Manetti, Jr.'s Posts

Louis provides comprehensive legal counsel to banks, lenders, servicers, and debt collectors. He focuses his practice on navigating complex litigation and financial regulation matters. Louis has a deep understanding of federal consumer protection statutes, including RESPA, FCRA, TILA, TCPA, and FDCPA. He also handles litigation involving state statutes, such as the Illinois Mortgage Foreclosure Law (IMFL), and state consumer fraud and deceptive business practices statutes. Louis has significant experience defending class actions in these areas.

Contact:Read more about Louis Manetti, Jr.

In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, host Chris Willis is joined by his colleague Lou Manetti from the firm’s Chicago office to unpack a significant new Illinois Supreme Court decision on standing in consumer cases based on federal statutes. Chris and Lou walk through the court’s FCRA “receipt truncation” ruling, explaining how Illinois — long thought to have more generous standing rules than federal court — has now imported a “concrete injury” requirement for common-law standing where the statute does not expressly confer a right to sue. The discussion compares Illinois’ approach to federal Article III jurisprudence and explores how the court distinguished between statutory and common-law standing, why FCRA did not qualify for statutory standing, and what counts (and doesn’t count) as a concrete injury. Lou also outlines the practical implications for FCRA, FDCPA, TILA, and RESPA litigation in Illinois state courts, including the reduced payoff from forum shopping after federal standing dismissals and new avenues for defense motions challenging bare procedural violation cases that lack real-world harm.

On November 20, the Illinois Supreme Court narrowly construed private rights of action under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), creating a de facto “concrete injury” requirement for claims under the FCRA and potentially other federal statutes with similar language authorizing rights of action. Although Article III’s concrete-injury requirement has become familiar in federal courts over the last decade, Illinois courts had not previously imposed such a requirement in cases involving statutory rights of action. The court in Fausett v. Walgreen Co., held that the FCRA does not explicitly authorize consumers to sue for violations, so the law did not authorize consumer lawsuits unless the consumer could show that a violation caused them a concrete injury. This ruling will significantly narrow consumers’ ability to bring no-injury claims under similar statutes in Illinois state courts.

In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, Chris Willis and Louis Manetti delve into the evolving legal landscape surrounding the statute of limitations for mortgage foreclosures in Illinois. With recent cases challenging long-held assumptions, lenders face new uncertainties. This discussion provides insights into how these cases could set binding precedents, potentially altering foreclosure practices statewide. Tune in to understand the implications for lenders and servicers and learn strategies to navigate these legal challenges effectively.