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.
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.
On December 9, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) announced the launch of a rulemaking process addressing credit reporting on survivors of domestic violence, elder abuse, and other forms of financial abuse.
On December 10, the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) issued a letter to all federally insured credit unions, highlighting the risks associated with certain overdraft and non-sufficient funds (NSF) fee practices. The letter emphasizes the potential harm to consumers and the heightened risks to credit unions, including reputational, consumer compliance, third-party, and litigation risks, resulting
On December 10, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it is distributing more than $540,000 in refunds to victims of an abusive debt collector group. The debt collectors allegedly threatened consumers with lawsuits or arrest for debts that they might not have even owed.
On December 3, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued version 1.1 of the “Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices” booklet of the Comptroller’s Handbook, also known as the UDAAP booklet. The UDAAP booklet was last updated in June 2020.
Earlier this month, we discussed the lawsuit filed by ACA International, LLC and Collection Bureau Services, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) and Director Rohit Chopra. The lawsuit challenges the CFPB’s October 1, 2024 advisory opinion on medical debt collection practices. The plaintiffs are seeking an order vacating the advisory opinion and a stay of the effective date pending the conclusion of the case.
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.