Not a Preferred Course: 11th Circuit Decides FDCPA Question in Hunstein v. Preferred Collection and Management Services Wednesday, May 12, 2021
On 21 April 2021, the 11th Circuit held that a debt collector’s transmittal of a customer’s debt-related data to a third-party letter preparation vendor without authorization stated a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b). The 11th Circuit’s decision may have implications for the debt-collection businesses that outsource customer-related tasks to vendors.
In
Hunstein v. Preferred Collection and Management Services, Inc., the plaintiff incurred debt to a hospital for medical treatment.
1 The hospital transferred the debt to the defendant to collect.
File: B-419193.4; B-419193.5; B-419193.6
Date: April 15, 2021
Lars E. Anderson, Esq., Charlotte R. Rosen, Esq., and James P. Miller, Esq., Odin Feldman Pittleman PC, for the protester.
Timothy A. Furin, Esq., Ryan C. Bradel, Esq., Alan M. Apple, Esq., and Chelsea A. Padgett, Esq., Ward & Berry PLLC, for BCD Travel USA, LLC, the intervenor.
Jeremiah Strack, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency.
Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
1. Challenges to the evaluation of the awardee’s technical quotation and past performance are denied where the protester’s arguments rely on definitions that are not found in the solicitation, and where the evaluations were reasonable and consistent with the solicitation criteria.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
Confidentiality and non-disclosure provisions in employment agreements can be a meaningful measure to help companies protect valuable intellectual property, including trade secrets. This article addresses certain important issues under New York law concerning such provisions. Confidentiality and non-disclosure provisions in employment agreements can also be important evidence of measures a trade secret owner employs to protect such important intellectual property. Conversely, as certain cases from New York indicate, the failure to have in place a non-disclosure agreement can create difficult hurdles in asserting a trade secrets claim later on.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
Confidentiality and non-disclosure provisions in employment
agreements can be a meaningful measure to help companies protect
valuable intellectual property, including trade secrets. This
article addresses certain important issues under New York law
concerning such provisions. Confidentiality and non-disclosure
provisions in employment agreements can also be important evidence
of measures a trade secret owner employs to protect such important
intellectual property. Conversely, as certain cases from New York
indicate, the failure to have in place a non-disclosure agreement
can create difficult hurdles in asserting a trade secrets claim
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
In a decision that could throw the debt-collection industry into turmoil, on April 21, 2021, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals released its opinion in the case
Hunstein v. Preferred Collection & Mgmt. Servs., Inc., No. 19-14434, 2021 WL 1556069 (11th Cir. Apr. 21, 2021). The crux of the opinion is the court’s holding that a debt collector faces potential liability under the FDCPA for transmitting a consumer’s personal information to
any third-party not explicitly designated by the statute. The potential implications of this decision are far-reaching.
The underlying facts in
Hunstein will be familiar to anyone acquainted with the everyday workings of many debt collectors. A debt collector electronically transmitted information about the consumer (including the consumer’s name, his status as a debtor, the entity to which he owed the debt, and the outstanding balance owed) to its third-party dunning ven