Yesterday, Federal Communications Commissioner Olivia Trusty announced the appointment of several members to her team stating, “I am pleased to announce the talented individuals who will be joining my team. Each brings a wealth of experience, deep commitment to public service, and a shared passion for advancing the Commission’s mission. I look forward to working alongside them as we serve the American people.”
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, ruled that the Medicaid Act’s any-qualified-provider provision does not confer individual rights enforceable under 42 U.S.C. §1983. This decision reverses the Fourth Circuit’s judgment, which affirmed the right of Medicaid beneficiaries to sue state officials for excluding Planned Parenthood from South Carolina’s Medicaid program.
Background
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.
On January 27, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a significant opinion holding that the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) does not prohibit the enforcement of arbitration agreements in credit card contracts under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).
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.
Yesterday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) proposed a new rule aimed at banning certain contractual provisions in agreements for consumer financial products or services. The CFPB’s proposal targets certain terms and conditions sometimes found in so-called contracts of adhesion or standard-form contracts, including waivers of legal rights and protections, contract terms that limit free expression, and other terms that the CFPB believes undermine consumers’ rights and protections. The proposed rule also seeks to codify certain prohibitions under the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Credit Practices Rule.