According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were all up for the month. Only Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) filings were down for May.
WebRecon reports the overall statistics for
In a recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Texas Debt Collection Act (TDCA) case, finding three texts and three phone messages over eight weeks was not harassing and because the messages were clearly for another person, an unsophisticated consumer could not have thought defendants were attempting to collect a debt from the plaintiff.
This article was republished in insideARM on June 17, 2025.
On May 22, Illinois House Bill 3352 passed the Illinois legislature and now awaits Governor JB Pritzker’s signature. This bill amends the Illinois Collection Agency Act to provide an individual a way to avoid liability for a coerced debt. HB 3352 defines coerced debt as a debt incurred due to fraud, duress, intimidation, threat, force, coercion, undue influence, or non-consensual use of the debtor’s personal identifying information as a result of domestic abuse, sexual assault, exploitation, or human trafficking.
According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were all down for the month. Still, everything except filings under the FDCPA were up over 2024 with CFPB complaints being up 100.4%!
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.
According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were all up for the month. Not only that, but everything except filings under the FDCPA were up over 2024.
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 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).