On December 8, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) (collectively, the agencies) filed an amici curiae brief urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to reverse a district court’s decision finding that furnishers need not investigate indirect disputes involving purely legal questions under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
On December 15, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced it had reached a settlement with medical debt collector Commonwealth Financial Systems, Inc. (Commonwealth) in its lawsuit over alleged illegal debt collection practices. Specifically, the CFPB alleged that Commonwealth failed to conduct reasonable investigations of disputes and violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by attempting to collect disputed debt without obtaining substantiating documentation. Under the settlement agreement, Commonwealth is banned from debt collection activities, must request CRAs to delete all consumer accounts to which it had previously furnished information, and must pay a $95,000 penalty to the CFPB’s victims relief fund.
On December 13, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law S4907A, which prohibits hospitals, medical providers, or ambulance services from providing negative information about medical debt to consumer reporting agencies (CRAs). The law also requires that these entities include a provision in their contracts with collection agencies prohibiting the reporting of any portion of a medical debt to a CRA. Any debt that is reported to a CRA will be deemed void. The law became effective immediately after it was signed.
On November 20, a judge for the Southern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) class-action holding that a simple lack of a date on a model validation notice did not amount to a violation of the statute because it was not confusing to the least sophisticated consumer.
On November 22, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision finding that the plaintiff lacked Article III standing in a putative class action brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
In Brown v. MRS BPO, LLC, the Northern District of Illinois, acting on its own motion, granted summary judgment in favor of the defense on claims asserting violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA).
On November 9, a magistrate judge in the Northern District of Georgia issued a Report & Recommendation to grant a motion to dismiss because the plaintiff’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) claims were time-barred and the cause of action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) failed to state a claim.
On November 16, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) released its Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) Annual Report detailing the CFPB’s 2022 activities related to debt collection practices. This comprehensive document summarizes everything FDCPA-related undertaken by the agency during 2022, including enforcement actions, a summary of consumer complaints, education and outreach initiatives, and highlights from examinations it conducted. In addition to summarizing activities in the debt collection space from the past year, the report hints at potential future activities. Tellingly, the CFPB’s focus in 2022 was predominantly on medical debt, as highlighted by its press release announcing this report.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a summary order affirming a district court’s holding that an emailed response to the plaintiff’s email did not constitute an “initial communication” under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA).
A California state court recently denied a preliminary injunction sought by the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (the DFPI) in its long-running litigation against Opportunity Financial (OppFi) contending that OppFi is the “true lender,” and therefore subject to usury limits, on loans originated by OppFi’s bank partner. The court found that on the factual record before it that the DFPI had not shown a reasonable probability of prevailing on the merits of its claim.