Statistics for May 2026 consumer litigation filings are in, and the picture is essentially the reverse of April. After all three major consumer protection statutes posted month-over-month increases in April, the first time that had happened in over a year, all three declined in May.
On June 25, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued a decision affirming summary judgment in favor of a consumer reporting agency (CRA) that allegedly issued an inaccurate consumer report by inadvertently including the subject’s twin brother’s speeding ticket in the background check report. The decision provides useful guidance on the standard for “reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy” under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the circumstances under which a CRA may rely on official court records without further investigation.
Statistics for April consumer litigation filings are in, and, for the first time in over a year, all three of the top consumer protection statutes moved up month-over-month. According to a report by WebRecon, court filings under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) all increased in April compared to March. This is the first time since March 2025 that all three statutes have been up in the same month. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) complaint volume dipped in April, but is still up year-over-year.
On May 19, Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger (D) indicated that she intends to veto SB 229, a pending bill which would have created a Virginia state court class action mechanism and would have modified the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA) in critical ways. Governor Spanberger initially noted that she “approve[d] the general purpose of this bill,” but returned it to the legislature with proposed amendments.
Statistics for March consumer litigation filings are in with the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) again leading the pack in terms of increased litigation filings and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) not far behind.
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