The Court of Appeals of Indiana recently upheld a lower court’s decision that a debt buyer who purchased a portfolio of defaulted student loans and placed an account with a collection agency qualifies as a “debt collector” under both Indiana state law and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has recently underscored the fact that a plaintiff does not automatically gain Article III standing under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) simply because they are confused by a letter.
According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) were down for the month of March while court filings under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were up. Year-to-date everything is
A U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Missouri recently granted a defendant’s summary judgment motion in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) case, holding that the plaintiff lacked standing because she did not show an injury in fact traceable to the defendant’s alleged consumer reporting.
In March, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss a claim that the defendant violated § 1692e(8) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when it failed to report a debt as disputed. Specifically, the court determined it could disregard the allegations in the complaint that the plaintiff had disputed the debt during a telephone call, because the defendant attached the transcript of the call to the motion to dismiss that contradicted the plaintiff’s allegations.
In a recent speech at the National Consumer Law Center/National Association of Consumer Advocates Spring Training, Seth Frotman, General Counsel of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau), focused on medical billing and collections and tenant screening and debt, emphasizing the CFPB’s enforcement of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) in these areas.
In March, a district court in the Eastern District of California followed other courts holding that an undated, model form debt validation notice does not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Specifically, the court found that the plaintiff’s barebones allegations about purported financial, reputational, and emotional harm did not confer Article III standing.
The California Senate Banking and Financial Institutions Committee is currently considering Senate Bill (SB) 1286, which would expand the scope of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA) to also prohibit debt collectors from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the collection of small business debts.
On April 2, the California Senate Judicial Committee passed Senate Bill 1061. The bill seeks to prevent health care providers and contracted collection agencies from providing information about patients’ medical debt to credit reporting agencies. The bill would also prevent credit reporting agencies from accepting, storing, or sharing information related to medical debt.
According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) were down for the month of February while court filings under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were up. Year-to-date everything is still up by double digits compared to 2023.