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
On February 13, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of an Eastern District of New York court and found that the defendant law firm, Mandarich Law Group, LLC (Mandarich), had conducted a meaningful attorney review of the plaintiff debtor’s account prior to mailing her a debt collection letter on the firm’s letterhead.
According to the district court for the District of Massachusetts, debt collectors may be found in violation of § 1692g(a)(3) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when sending debt collection letters requiring the consumer to dispute the debt in writing.
As background, in Sherwyn Rocke v. Monarch Recovery Management, Inc. (Monarch), the
In a recent decision, a Michigan district court found that because there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether the defendant debt collector notified the consumer reporting agency (CRA) to remove a disputed debt notification from the plaintiff’s tradeline, the case could proceed to trial.
Federal courts across the country continue to divest themselves of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) cases following the Supreme Court’s salient Article III standing decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez. The Southern District of Illinois is no exception, with a court in that district recently dismissing an FDCPA action for lack of standing
On Dec. 15, 2022, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council’s (FFIEC) Task Force on Consumer Compliance adopted revised examination procedures for the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and its implementing regulation, Regulation F.
The revised interagency procedures will apply to examinations conducted by FFIEC’s member regulators of their respective regulated institutions. FFIEC is composed
On January 4, the District Court of New Jersey dismissed a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) complaint against an unlicensed debt collector for lack of standing. In Valentine v. Unifund CCR, LLC, et al., the court held that merely receiving a letter from an unlicensed debt collector is insufficient to establish a concrete injury
As part of its ongoing initiative to scrutinize so-called “junk fees,” the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) published guidance on two practices that it opines potentially violate the Consumer Financial Protection Act’s prohibition on unfair practices. Specifically, the CFPB published a compliance bulletin, cautioning against charging across-the-board depositor fees to consumers who deposit a
On July 19, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware issued a decision that should draw the attention for banks that charge overdraft fees for overdraft protection.
In Miller v. Del-One Federal Credit Union, plaintiff Joanne Miller alleged that the defendant credit union violated Regulation E, promulgated under the Electronic Fund Transfers
The Ninth Circuit recently affirmed a Central District of California decision, denying a motion to remand and granting a motion to dismiss in Tailford, No. 20-56344, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 5357, at *11-12 (9th Cir. Mar. 1, 2022). Plaintiffs Theresa Tailford, Sanford Buckles, and Jeffrey Ruderman sued a national credit bureau for FCRA violations,