The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a consumer’s lawsuit against a debt collector, holding that the consumer lacked Article III standing to sue because his allegations of ʺconfusion” and “alarm” were not sufficiently concrete to result in an injury in fact.
Posts published in “FDCPA”
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania, an intermediate appellate court, recently affirmed a trial court's order sustaining preliminary objections to a complaint alleging violations of Pennsylvania's Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act (FCEUA), which incorporates by reference the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently held that a consumer plaintiff had Article III standing to sue because his federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claim was similar to a common law "intrusion upon seclusion" claim, even though it involved only a single unwanted call.
A state court judge in Cook County, Illinois recently dismissed a class action lawsuit alleging violations similar to those asserted in Hunstein v. Preferred Collection and Mgmt. Services with prejudice for failure to state a claim under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently reversed a trial court's dismissal of a consumer’s federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claim, and held that the FDCPA claim actually fell within the statute of limitations.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently vacated a trial court’s judgment entered after trial in favor of the named plaintiff and a class of consumers for alleged violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act due to lack of Article III standing.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a consumer’s federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claim, holding that the consumer did not allege any concrete harm necessary for standing.
Just a few years ago, the annual review would primarily encompass federal activity. But a shift began in 2018, and by the close of this year, it’s clear there is far more state activity impacting consumer debt collection.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was relatively quiet when it came to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, only issuing three opinions.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently affirmed a trial court’s dismissal of a putative class action complaint alleging that the defendant debt buyer violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by trying to collect interest supposedly in excess of limits imposed under Pennsylvania law.
8th Cir. Distinguishes ‘Article III’ and ‘Statutory’ Standing in FDCPA ‘Third Party Disclosure’ Case
8th Cir. Distinguishes ‘Article III’ and ‘Statutory’ Standing in FDCPA ‘Third Party Disclosure’ Case
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed the judgment of a trial court and held that non-consumers cannot bring a claim under Section 1692c(b) of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts recently denied a motion to dismiss FDCPA and Mass. Gen. Law. Ch. 93 and 93A claims, holding that a constable qualifies as a “debt collector” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and a “creditor” under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93.