Afni, Inc. won judgment on the pleadings on October 28 in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act suit in the Southern District of Indiana. Plaintiff Karl Glass alleged that a collection letter sent to him by Afni failed to identify the current creditor to whom the debt was owed, in violation of Section 1692g(a)(2) of
On November 14, the House Financial Services Committee passed the following bills which would amend the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and other consumer protection statutes and regulations. Next, the entire House of Representatives will consider the following bills:
In Kinnick v. Med-1 Solutions, LLC, the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana found that sending a collection letter to a bankruptcy debtor provided that debtor with standing to file a claim based on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act against the creditor outside of the bankruptcy case. For a creditor,
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act requires a debt collector to inform consumers of the “name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed” within five days after its initial communication with a consumer regarding a debt. 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a). And § 1692e(10) prohibits the use of any “false representation or deceptive means
In a non-precedential ruling, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld a district court decision to grant summary judgment in favor of a defendant that was sued for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The plaintiffs – a condominium owner and his children – lapsed on payments owed to a condominium agency,
On September 27, the District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed a plaintiff’s complaint alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, finding a collection letter adequately set forth the amount owed and did so in a manner that was not false, deceptive, or misleading by using safe harbor language adopted
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld dismissal of a consumer’s claim that the phrase “current balance” in a collection letter obscured the static nature of her debt.
Plaintiff Patricia Ann Koehn alleged that the collection letter from defendant Delta Outsource Group, Inc. falsely implied that Koehn’s static debt was subject to interest and fees
Certified Credit & Collection Bureau (“CCCB”) sent a collection letter to Delia Rodriguez seeking payment of $29.88 for an unpaid medical debt. CCCB’s letter referred to the creditor as its “client” and did not explicitly state that the client was the creditor to whom the debt was owed.
Rodriguez brought a putative class action in
In recent years there has been a dramatic increase in the number of claims brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act based on calls made to wrong numbers. A decision in the Northern District of Illinois indicates that such calls can also give rise to exposure under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.
In Kayyal
In Roman v. RGS Financial, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-04917-ADS-AKT (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 6, 2019), Judge Arthur D. Spatt held that RGS did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by failing to disclose that interest, late fees, and/or other fees were accruing.
Plaintiff Stephanie Roman alleged that RGS violated the FDCPA when it sent a