Photo of Noah DiPasquale

Noah DiPasquale

Subscribe to Noah DiPasquale's Posts

Noah helps clients in the consumer finance industry navigate national class-action litigation by employing rigorous advocacy skills to pursue client goals.

Follow:Read more about Noah DiPasqualeNoah's Linkedin Profile

In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Freedom Mortgage Corporation, rejecting Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) claims brought by borrowers who insisted they had made their mortgage payments on time. The court held that the servicer accurately reported a 30‑day late payment and conducted a reasonable investigation in response to the borrowers’ disputes forwarded to it by the consumer reporting agencies (CRAs). The opinion reinforces two important principles: first, a payment can be accurately reported as late when it is not properly identifiable or conforming to the servicer’s payment instructions, and second, a furnisher’s investigative obligations are defined and limited by the information it receives from the CRAs.

In this episode of FCRA Focus, host Dave Gettings is joined by Troutman colleagues Cindy Hanson and Noah DiPasquale for a deep dive into reseller litigation under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The trio breaks down what a “reseller” is under 15 U.S.C. 1681a(u), how resellers function as intermediaries between originating consumer reporting agencies and end users, and why that limited role matters when evaluating claims under 1681e(b) and 1681i. They discuss recent case law on reasonable procedures, the impact of 1681i(f)’s limited dispute obligations, and practical litigation strategies, including leveraging industry standards, expert testimony, and arguments against double recovery under the one-satisfaction rule and setoff.

Key point: Courts are concluding that not all data breaches should result in a lawsuit. Businesses need to consider causation and damages when responding to an incident and take steps to determine if there is no evidence of harm or traceability including on a class wide basis.

On July 14, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) filed a status report announcing its decision not to reissue its Medical Debt Collection Advisory Opinion, which had been issued in 2024 to “remind debt collectors of their obligations to comply with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act [FDCPA] and Regulation F’s prohibition on false, deceptive, or misleading representations or means in connection with the collection of any medical debt and unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any medical debt.” The Advisory Opinion had been challenged in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by ACA International and Collection Bureau Services, Inc.

Today, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) announced the withdrawal of 67 regulatory guidance documents, including interpretive rules, policy statements, and advisory opinions that have been issued since the Bureau’s inception in 2011. The withdrawn guidance documents impact most federal consumer protection laws, including the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (CFPA), Fair…

On March 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a ruling addressing the obligations of furnishers under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to conduct reasonable investigations of disputed information, whether the disputed information be legal or factual in nature. The issue of whether the distinction between “legal” and “factual” disputes is relevant under the FCRA has been hotly contested in recent years. The Fourth Circuit’s new decision follows in the footsteps of the Eleventh and Second Circuits by replacing a “legal vs. factual” test with a “readily and objectively verifiable” test.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts recently denied a credit repair organization’s motion for partial summary judgment and granted the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’s motion for summary judgment in a case alleging violations of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA), and Massachusetts state law. The significant penalties and restitution ordered in this case highlight the severe consequences of non-compliance with federal and state regulations governing credit repair services.

In Career Counseling, Inc. v. Amerifactors Financial Group, LLC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld a district court’s decision denying class certification in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) case on the basis that the plaintiff failed to satisfy Rule 23’s “implicit further requirement of ascertainability.” The Fourth Circuit also upheld summary judgment against the defendant as to the individual claim finding the defendant was indeed the “sender” of the fax at issue. Each finding is discussed more fully below.