On May 7, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) released a 538-page Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (the Rule) that would update the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The Rule would be the first major update to the FDCPA since its enactment in 1977 and gives much-needed clarification on the bounds of federally-regulated activities of

In Tyler v. Mirand Response Systems, Inc., the Southern District of Texas recently granted summary judgment in favor of a debt collector in a claim brought under § 1692d(5) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Plaintiff Nina Tyler had become indebted to her bank, and the debt was transferred to Mirand Response Systems, Inc.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently held, for a second time, that a consumer need not receive notice of a potential violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in order for the statute of limitations to start; rather, the focus remains on when the injury occurs. A copy of the

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) released on May 7 a 538-page Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (the Rule) that would update the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The Rule would be the first major update to the FDCPA since its enactment in 1977 and gives much-needed clarification on the bounds of federally-regulated activities of

This morning the CFPB released a new proposed rule that would govern debt collection. Continuing a process begun in 2013, the rule would mark the first major update to the FDCPA in more than 40 years. A common theme throughout the process of developing the rule has been a concentration on updating the FDCPA to

In Abdollahzadeh v. Mandarich Law Group, LLP, the Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for a debt collector under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, finding that its procedures to prevent the collection of a time-barred debt were reasonable enough to support a bona fide error defense. 

As background,

The District Court for the Southern District of Texas recently awarded a defendant summary judgment because the defendant’s call records directly contradicted the plaintiff’s vague recollection of events.  The Plaintiff in Young v. Medicredit Inc., No. H-17-3701, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71020 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 26, 2019), asserted claims against Defendant Medicredit Inc. (“Medicredit”)

In a recently issued opinion, a federal district court judge in the Eastern District of Wisconsin found that a debt collector’s use of Seventh Circuit-approved interest and fees safe harbor language in a collection letter could constitute a false and misleading representation under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act where the plaintiff alleged that