On August 22, a district court judge in the Western District of New York denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss a case brought by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) and Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA).
According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) were slightly up while filings under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) remained unchanged for the month of July. Complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were down for the month.
On August 18, a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York granted the plaintiff’s motion for class certification for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) relating to an allegedly improper debt assignment notification.
A United States district court in Kentucky recently granted defendants’ motion to dismiss a case arising under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) for lack of personal jurisdiction.
On August 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld a trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of a debt buyer holding that claim preclusion barred the plaintiff’s claims brought under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) and Utah’s Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act (UCSPA).
According to a recent report by WebRecon, court filings under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) were down for the month of June. This reverses the upward swing seen in these filings in May. Complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) were down in May and remained down for June.
On June 16, Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo signed into law Senate Bill 276, which significantly amended Nevada Revised Statute 649, otherwise known as the Nevada Collection Agencies Licensing Act (the Act). The Act regulates the activities of “collection agencies,” or any person “engaging, directly or indirectly, and as a primary or a secondary object business or pursuit, in the collection of or in soliciting or obtaining in any manner the payment of a claim owed or due or asserted to be owed or due to another.” Among other things, Senate Bill 276 expanded the exemptions from the collection agency licensing requirement to include entities that are not debt collectors under § 1692a(6)(A) – (F) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). From a practical perspective, these expanded licensure exemptions should result in many first-party servicers no longer needing to obtain a Nevada collections license. Highlights of Senate Bill 276 include:
According to a recent report by WebRecon, the month of May saw a jump significant from the previous month in filings under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), however, remained down.
In a matter involving the bona fide error defense to claims asserted under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA), an Indiana court of appeals reversed a trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant debt collector holding that the defense did not apply because the mistake at issue was not of
Last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s denial of preliminary injunctive relief to plaintiffs challenging Nevada Senate Bill 248 (S.B. 248), which places new restrictions on the collection of consumer medical debt. In doing so, the court found the bill neither ran afoul of the First Amendment, nor was preempted by the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) or Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Read on for further analysis.
By way of background, S.B. 248 amended chapter 649 of the Nevada Revised Statutes governing debt collection agencies. Passed in response to the uptick in needed medical care caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, S.B. 248 was designed to protect Nevada consumers from potential financial ruin caused by medical debt by imposing new restrictions on the collection of such debt. Among other provisions of the bill, § 7 requires debt collection agencies to send written notification to medical debtors 60 days before taking any action to collect such debt (Section 7 Notice). The Section 7 Notice must inform the debtor that the “medical debt has been assigned to the collection agency” for collection or that the “collection agency has otherwise obtained the medical debt for collection.” During the 60-day period following the notice, a collection agency cannot take “any action to collect a medical debt.” Voluntary payments during the 60-day period are permitted, but a debt collector must disclose to the debtor that “payment is not demanded or due,” and that the “medical debt will not be reported to any credit reporting agency during the 60-day notification period.” Implementing regulations define “action to collect a medical debt” as “any attempt by a collection agency or its manager or agents to collect a medical debt from a medical debtor” and provide examples of what are, and are not, “attempts” to collect such debt.