Debt collectors beware: On August 12, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a debt collector violates section 1692f(8) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by displaying an unencrypted “quick response” (or “QR”) code on the face of an envelope containing a debt collection letter that, when scanned,
On August 8, 2019, in Lavallee v. Med-1 Solutions, LLC, No. 17-3244 (7th Cir. 2019), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a debt collector’s argument that its email, which contained only a “secure message” hyperlink, was a “communication” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) because the email did not convey any
On July 30, a district court judge in the Southern District of California granted a defendant debt collector’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The Court held that the collection letters sent by Capital Management Services, LP (“CMS”) did not constitute violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
The Second Circuit remains a hotbed for consumer claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act related to disclosures of interest and fees in collection letters. Plaintiffs bombard New York courts with these claims, forcing courts to meticulously review every possible disclosure of amounts due. While most of these claims ultimately fail on summary judgment,
On August 2, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced that it would be extending the public comment period on its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) to amend Regulation F as part of implementing the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The CFPB announced that it is extending the public comment deadline to September 18, 2019.
On
On July 9, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals entered a non-precedential opinion upholding a district court’s ruling that a third-party collection agency could not invoke a creditor’s mandatory arbitration agreement against a plaintiff that brought claims against the collection agency for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act on the facts before the
Aspiring plaintiffs continue to litigate the issue of an attorney’s role in sending debt collection letters. Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, a debt collector may not use false or misleading representations in the collection of a debt. 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e). In Bencomo v. Forster & Garbus LLP, et al., No.
The Eastern District of New York recently granted a debt collector’s motion for summary judgment in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case because the collection letter clearly identified the creditor to whom the debt was owed and would not mislead even the least sophisticated consumer. In doing so, the Court critiqued the “lawyer’s case”
On June 25, a district court judge in the Eastern District of Louisiana granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The Court held that requiring the plaintiff, Iris Calogero, to repay funds arising from the overpayment of grant monies did not constitute a debt under the Fair
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently reiterated that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act was not intended to penalize a company that made an honest mistake that resulted in no harm to the borrower.
In Casillas v. Madison Avenue Associates, Inc., No. 17-3162, Slip Op. (7th Cir. June 4,