Court Finds FDCPA SOL Accrues on Date Debt is Reported to CRA; FCRA Does Not Require Adherence to Metro 2 Guidelines Published on: 6 May 2021 at 10:00 a.m. ET May 6, 2021, 10 a.m. May 6, 2021, 10:19 a.m. insideARM.com The iA Institute
http://www.insidearm.com/news/00047332-court-finds-fdcpa-sol-accrues-date-debt-r/
In these chaotic days for the accounts receivable industry, it’s important to take note of good news coming from court decisions. So, here’s today’s bit of good news: on April 28, 2021, in the case of
Davenport v. Capio Partners, Case No. 20-cv-01700 (M.D. Pa. 2021), a district court granted the debt collectors motion to dismiss finding that (1) failing to follow Metro 2 guidelines is not actionable under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA); and (2) a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) violation related to credit reporting accrues at the time the debt is reported.
Alarm company stole people’s identities
RANDY HUTCHINSON
View Comments
I frequently write about FTC settlements with companies accused of deceptive sales practices. Few have been as ugly as one it just reached with Vivint Smart Home. My first reaction was the company’s actions sounded like a smaller scale version of the Wells Fargo fake accounts scandal. Lo and behold, FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra made the same comparison in a statement about the case.
Vivint is one of the largest home security and monitoring companies, with more than 1.5 million customers. It employs door-to-door salespeople, many working during the summer on a commission-only basis. Vivint’s system typically costs $1,000 or more and many customers finance the purchase. Salespeople use a proprietary system to check credit records and complete the sale.
Three Ways the Legislature Has Redefined Consumer Litigation in West Virginia -
The regular legislative session recently ended in West Virginia, and once again our Legislature has amended the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act, one of the primary statutes under which consumers sue creditors, collectors, and others.
For years, the Act stood substantially in its original form since its 1974 passage. From the late 1990s through 2015, consumers filed numerous lawsuits under the Act. Its statute of limitations provision (in some instances stretching as much as 31 years) and its penalty provision (as much as $4,800 per violation) made it a favorite among consumer attorneys. Consumers traditionally have filed suit under the Act in West Virginia far more often than they ever filed suit under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or other federal statutes.
FTC enters its largest FCRA settlement with home security company
On April 29, 2021, Vivint Smart Homes, Inc. (Vivint), a home security and monitoring company, entered into an agreement with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regarding alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), including the Red Flags Rule. Under this agreement, Vivint will pay a $15 million civil penalty and $5 million in compensation to consumers. According to the FTC press release, this is the largest monetary judgement to date for an FTC FCRA case. So, what did Vivint allegedly do that ran afoul of the FCRA?
According to the complaint filed by the Department of Justice on behalf of the FTC, Vivint’s smart home security systems cost over $1,000, so many consumers will finance the cost. Some of this financing is through a third-party bank, but a significant portion are also financed by Vivint using retail installment contracts where the seller of goods also finances the purchase. Consumers had
Consumer Law Hinsights is a monthly compilation of nationwide consumer protection cases of interest to financial services and accounts receivable management companies.
Eleventh Circuit Delivers Surprising Decision on Use of Third-Party Vendors in FDCPA Case
The district court dismissed the case for lack of standing and Hunstein appealed. The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the requirements of standing could be met in one of three ways: 1) tangible harm in the form of physical injury, financial loss, or emotional distress; 2) a risk of real harm requiring factual allegations that establish substantial, significant, or real danger; and 3) statutory violations. The court found that while Hunstein failed to establish either tangible harm or risk of real harm, he did establish a statutory violation that granted him standing. Their statutory violation analysis involved looking at history and the judgment of Congress. The court took a very textualist view of the law and surprisingly