Quest Diagnostics Sued Over Failure to Bill Employer for Worker s Compensation Injury lawstreetmedia.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from lawstreetmedia.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently issued an opinion holding that, when a debt collector sent a consumer’s information to a vendor responsible for creating a dunning letter, that action constituted a communication “in connection with the collection of any debt” under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) provision generally prohibiting communicating consumers’ personal information to third parties. Such an action thereby created a “concrete injury” giving the consumer necessary “standing” under Article III of the U.S. Constitution to sue the debt collector for damages.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has delivered a novel and highly consequential interpretation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act that is potentially transformative for debt collectors and their third-party service providers.
On April 21, 2021, in
Hunstein v. Preferred Collection and Management Services, Inc., F.3d – (2021), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a decision on a case of first impression, finding that a debt collector’s transmittal of a consumer’s personal information to its letter vendor constituted a prohibited third-party communication “in connection with the collection of any debt” within the meaning of section 1692c(b) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). As discussed below, this ruling has broad ranging ramifications for the accounts receivable management industry and will likely foster a new wave of litigation under the FD