In a recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Texas Debt Collection Act (TDCA) case, finding three texts and three phone messages over eight weeks was not harassing and because the messages were clearly for another person, an unsophisticated consumer could not have thought defendants were attempting to collect a debt from the plaintiff.
This article was republished in insideARM on June 17, 2025.
On May 22, Illinois House Bill 3352 passed the Illinois legislature and now awaits Governor JB Pritzker’s signature. This bill amends the Illinois Collection Agency Act to provide an individual a way to avoid liability for a coerced debt. HB 3352 defines coerced debt as a debt incurred due to fraud, duress, intimidation, threat, force, coercion, undue influence, or non-consensual use of the debtor’s personal identifying information as a result of domestic abuse, sexual assault, exploitation, or human trafficking.
Last year, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleging Global Circulation, Inc. (GCI) and its owner, Kenneth Redon III, violated the FTC Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and its associated Regulation F, § 521 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and the FTC’s Trade Regulation Rule on Impersonation of Government and Businesses. On May 1, the FTC announced the parties entered into a stipulated permanent injunction and money order, prohibiting GCI and Redon from any further debt collection activities.
In a recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, the court granted a motion to dismiss in favor of a debt collection law firm and one of its attorneys who were not licensed as debt collectors in Indiana. The court found that a failure to be licensed did not provide for a private right of action under state law and did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
This article was republished on insideARM on March 18, 2025.
In a recent decision, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted summary judgment in favor of a debt collector who responded to a debtor’s letter disputing and refusing to pay a debt by providing validation of the debt. The court found that the debt collector’s actions did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
In Kirkman v. Blitt and Gaines, P.C., the plaintiff sued the defendant in the Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) for sending her a letter by regular mail instead of email. The court found that the plaintiff lacked standing and granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Florida affirmed a trial court’s holding that claims under the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA) cannot not be assigned. In KAC 2021-1, LLC v. Mary T. Matuskah Irrevocable Trust, the plaintiff was an assignee of a tenant who leased property from the defendant trust. The tenant failed to make her monthly payments for four months and the defendant posted an “8-Day Notice” on her front door, which stated the amount due and demanded payment of the rent or possession of the property. The tenant alleged the notice faced outward so it could be seen by anyone and was specifically seen by the FedEx driver who dropped off a package, embarrassing her.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently affirmed that a debt collector did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when it threatened legal action to collect debts that were still within the applicable statute of limitations.
The New Mexico Supreme Court recently confirmed consumer standing to pursue state law claims against a credit union after it pursued debt collection lawsuits against its members in the New Mexico magistrate courts. Several members filed a class action lawsuit against the credit union for the unauthorized practice of law and under the Unfair Practices Act (UPA), but the trial court dismissed the case, finding the plaintiffs lacked standing. The court of appeals reversed and the Supreme Court affirmed, finding the plaintiffs had standing to bring claims under both the statute prohibiting the unlicensed practice of law and the UPA.
Recently, a U.S. District Court in the District of New Mexico denied a defendant’s motion for summary judgment on Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) claims for telemarketing calls, finding genuine questions of fact about the defendant’s direct liability, actual authority over agents making the calls, whether the system used to make the calls is an Automatic Telephone Dialing System (ATDS), and whether there is a private right of action under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(4). The court granted summary judgment only on claims regarding apparent authority for the agents who called and ratification of the agents’ actions.