Each week, ACA International’s compliance team covers relevant case summaries for ACA members. Here’s a rundown of recent top FCRA, TCPA and FDCPA cases we’ve covered.
05/10/2024 2:55 P.M.
2.5 minute read
Each week, ACA International’s compliance team covers relevant case summaries for ACA members. Members may also submit cases for consideration to our compliance team at [email protected].
Here are the cases covered May 7-10:
May 7:
Fitterer v. Resurgent Cap. Servs.: Court Finds Consumer’s FDCPA Claim Bordered ‘on the Frivolous’
A consumer claimed that a debt collector’s letter was misleading because it made false and misleading statements and did not effectively convey the amount of the debt.
Continue reading the case summary here.
Holden v. Holiday Inn Club Vacations: 11th Circuit Declines to Impose a Bright-Line Rule Under FCRA
The 11th Circuit declined to impose a bright-line rule that only purely factual or transcription errors are actionable under the FCRA. Rather, the court held that “in determining whether a claimed inaccuracy is potentially actionable under [§ 1681s-2], a court must determine … whether the information in dispute is ‘objectively and readily verifiable.’”
Continue reading the case summary here.
May 8:
Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC v. Arsenis: Serial Litigant Failed to State Claims Under 4th Amendment
A consumer attempted to have his debt collection case removed from state court into federal court.
Continue reading the summary here.
Osorio v. Transworld Systems: 3rd Circuit Finds No Standing for Confusion
The 3rd Circuit doubled down on its previous ruling in Huber v. Simon’s Agency, Inc, finding that a plaintiff’s mere confusion, without more, could not form the basis for Article III standing.
Continue reading the summary here.
May 9:
Harris v. Broker Sols., Inc.: 9th Circuit Finds Data Furnisher’s Investigation Was Reasonable
Two consumers appealed the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the data furnisher. The 9th Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision.
Continue reading the summary here.
Sofaly v. Portfolio Recovery Associates: Court Asks FDCPA Plaintiffs to Show Cause Why They Should Not Face Sanctions
A Pennsylvania federal district court ordered the plaintiffs to show cause why they should not be subject to sanctions for their scheme to “entrap” or “induce” the defendant into technical violations of the FDCPA.
Continue reading the summary here.
May 10:
Buruk v. Experian: Court Grants Asset Buyer’s Motion to Compel Arbitration of FDCPA Claims
A Massachusetts district court held that although the arbitration clause at issue did not explicitly state that the issue of waiver was subject to arbitration, the defendant’s conduct in the litigation was not inconsistent with asserting a right to arbitrate.
Continue reading the summary here.
Rakestraw v. Cadence Bank: Court Greatly Reduces Attorney’s Fees in FCRA Case
A consumer’s attorney sued a data furnisher for fees and costs after the case had been settled. The data furnisher asked that the request for fees and costs be denied.
Continue reading the summary here.
Visit the Industry Advancement Fund webpage for more Daily Decision recaps and compliance resources.
If you’ve recently obtained a judicial opinion that might benefit other ACA members, email it to us: [email protected].
- Join the discussion on legal and compliance topics with your fellow members on the Members Attorney Program community on The Hub. Simply log on to The Hub and select Members Attorney Program under the Communities menu.
- ACA’s Daily Decision is powered by ACA’s Litigation Advocacy and Compliance Teams.