The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has recently underscored the fact that a plaintiff does not automatically gain Article III standing under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) simply because they are confused by a letter.
Missouri Federal Court Finds Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Challenge Compliance Condition Code on Consumer Report
A U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Missouri recently granted a defendant’s summary judgment motion in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) case, holding that the plaintiff lacked standing because she did not show an injury in fact traceable to the defendant’s alleged consumer reporting.
New York Federal Court Finds Failure to Review Account Notes When Investigating a Dispute Could Be Considered Reckless Under the FCRA
In Martinez v. Celtic Bank, the Southern District of New York recently denied a motion for summary judgment finding that a jury could consider an investigation reckless when a furnisher fails to review any records other than a payment history in response to a dispute that an account was erroneously reported as delinquent.
New York Federal District Court Holds the Reasonableness of Investigation Into Alleged Identity Theft is a Factual Question under the FCRA
A U.S. district court in the Eastern District of New York recently denied a motion for summary judgment filed by a credit card issuer because the plaintiff alleged identity theft and a reasonable factfinder could determine the issuer’s investigation was willfully unreasonable under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
Pennsylvania District Court Finds No Personal Liability Under the TCPA
In Perrong v. Chase Data Corp., et al., a court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently ruled that no personal liability attaches to the owner of a company for Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) violations.
Troutman Pepper Publishes 2023 Consumer Financial Services Year in Review and A Look Ahead
We are pleased to share our annual review of regulatory and legal developments in the consumer financial services industry. With active federal and state legislatures, consumer financial services providers faced a challenging 2023. Courts across the country issued rulings that will have immediate and lasting impacts on the industry. Our team of more than 140 professionals has prepared this concise, yet thorough analysis of the most important issues and trends throughout our industry. We not only examined what happened in 2023, but also what to expect — and how to prepare — for the months ahead.
Speak for Yourself: Court Denies Class Certification in TCPA Case Based on Class Members’ Potentially Mixed Reactions to Ringless Voicemail Messages
On January 18, a court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin denied class certification in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) case concluding that the factual issue of whether the proposed class members had suffered an injury-in-fact sufficient to confer Article III standing based on the receipt of a ringless voicemail was an individualized issue that would predominate over common issues.
The Cryptocurrency Conundrum: Balancing Innovation with Terrorism Financing Risks
Cryptocurrency, with its anonymity and decentralization, has revolutionized financial transactions. However, it has also opened doors for illicit activities, such as terrorist financing. Below we explore the role of cryptocurrency in terrorist financing, focusing on Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization.
Inside Look: The SEC’s Enforcement Action Against Cryptocurrency Exchange Kraken
On November 20, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) instituted a civil enforcement action against Kraken, a major U.S. cryptocurrency exchange. The SEC alleged Kraken operated as an unregistered broker, dealer, exchange, and clearing agency, in violation of the Securities Exchange Act. The SEC’s lawsuit aims to prohibit Kraken from continuing these activities and seeks an unspecific amount of civil monetary penalties.
In the Ninth Circuit Precision is Required in an Offer of Judgment
A U.S. District Court in the Southern District of California recently held that a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 offer of judgment must clearly state that attorneys’ fees and costs are limited or waived, as Arvest Central Mortgage Company (Arvest) learned to its detriment. The plaintiff had a mortgage with Arvest, entered into a forbearance agreement, and made the payments on the property, but claimed Arvest inaccurately reported that he was late on his October 2020 payment. The plaintiff sued Arvest and nine other defendants for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and California’s Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, ultimately resolving his claims against all defendants except Arvest.