Debt Buyers + Collectors

Subscribe to Debt Buyers + Collectors via RSS

Last week, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) submitted several regulatory proposals to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Among the rules under consideration are those related to loan originator (LO) compensation and discretionary mortgage servicing, governed by the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z) and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (Regulation X). Additionally, the CFPB is reviewing its “larger participant” rules, which define the scope of its supervisory authority over major players in the debt collection and consumer credit reporting sectors. These rules, currently in “prerule” status, are under scrutiny by the OMB.

On May 16, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law CS/CS/SB 232, aimed at refining debt collection practices within the state. Among other things, the amendment to the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act clarifies that prohibited contact between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. in debt collection does not include email communication because such contact is less invasive than telephone calls. 

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).

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.

On February 27, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) successfully obtained a temporary restraining order against Blackrock Services, Inc. and its associated entities and individuals. The court order aims to halt the defendants’ alleged deceptive and abusive debt collection practices.

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.

This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a decision reversing a summary judgment order in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) case. The court found that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the defendant debt collector knew or should have known that the plaintiff disputed the debt, and whether the defendant exercised reasonable care in reporting the debt.

This article was republished on insideARM on January 28, 2025.

In our previous post, we discussed the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection’s (NYC DCWP) decision to delay the enforcement of the amended debt collection rules from December 1, 2024, to April 1, 2025. This postponement was in response to industry concerns and a legal challenge filed by ACA International, Inc. and Independent, Inc. NYC DCWP then announced it would delay the effective date for the amended rules to April 1, 2025, to align with the enforcement date.