Debt Buyers + Collectors

Subscribe to Debt Buyers + Collectors via RSS

New York City’s recently amended debt collection rules — scheduled to go into effect on December 1, 2024 and which would stringently regulate various debt collection activities by debt collectors operating in the city — have drawn a constitutional legal challenge. Whether this challenge will affect the effective date is yet to be seen. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the enforcement of the rules amending Title 6 of the Rules of the City of New York, which they argue are unconstitutional and preempted by federal and state law.

On October 1, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued an advisory opinion aimed at debt collectors and emphasizing their obligations under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Regulation F. The opinion specifically emphasizes the prohibitions on false, deceptive, or misleading representations, and unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect medical debts.

On September 24, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law a package of consumer protection laws, with three bills aimed directly at collection practices. These new laws introduce significant changes in the areas of commercial debt collection practices, medical debt reporting, and civil actions for money judgments.

In Aley v. Lightfire Partners, LLC, a U.S. District Court in the Northern District of New York certified aa Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action for all persons whose telephone numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry (DNC) but who received more than one telemarketing call from the defendant based on alleged consent given to a third-party website.

On September 9, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted summary judgment in favor of a debt collector in a case involving alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) based on phone calls the plaintiff received related to her medical debt.

Both houses of the New Jersey Legislature recently passed Assembly Bill No. 3861 (AB 3861), known as the Louisa Carman Medical Debt Relief Act. The legislation’s stated aims are to prevent undue financial hardship and protect patients from aggressive debt collection practices. Medical debt in general and how and whether it can be included in consumer reports has been a hot topic at the state and federal level. We have written on recent developments regarding medical debt here, here, here, and here.

A U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Missouri recently dismissed a lawsuit under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA), finding that two letters sent to the plaintiffs’ attorney did not constitute harassment or abuse under 15 U.S.C. § 1692d.

On July 2, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) published the summer edition of its Supervisory Highlights, focusing on examinations of auto and student loan servicing companies and debt collectors that were completed between April 1, 2023 and December 31, 2023. The report also highlights consumer complaints about medical payment products and identifies concerns with financial institutions freezing deposit accounts.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama recently issued a decision in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) case highlighting the importance of clear and unambiguous communication in debt collection practices and the need for debt collectors to have robust procedures in place to handle disputes.