To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
In its just-released decision, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has potentially created a new claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). In
Richard Hunstein v. Preferred Collection and Management Services, Inc., the Court examined a district court s dismissal of a novel argument – one that the decision itself notes is a question of first impression. The issue brought before the Court was whether a debt collector s sharing of information with a vendor is a violation of the FDCPA, specifically of 15 U.S.C. §1692c(b). The underlying facts are simple. A creditor referred a medical debt to a debt collector (Preferred). The debt collector utilized a third-party mail vendor (Compumail) to send a dunning letter to the debtor (Richard Hunstein). In doing so, certain information was conveyed, including (1) Hunstein s status as a debtor, (2) the balance of the debt, (3) the entity to which the debt was owed
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
Tue, Apr 27th 2021 10:46am
Tim Cushing
You can be angry about things said about you in court filings. But you really can t sue about them. Reporting based on court documents is almost (!) always protected by the First Amendment. After all, those making the statements in court are swearing what they re saying is true. Those reporting on sworn statements have no reason to believe otherwise, even if it s eventually revealed the assertions were false.
That s the tough lesson being learned by Jason Miller, a former Trump advisor who sued Gizmodo for reporting on court filings stating he had spiked a smoothie with an abortion pill to head off an inconvenient pregnancy. Miller has always claimed this accusation is false. Splinter a now-defunct website owned by Gizmodo reported on allegations made by another Trump staffer, A.J. Delgado, back in 2018.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
Over the last five years, an unceasing wave of lawsuits and demand letters alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act has rolled over businesses across the United States. Plaintiffs have argued that failing to provide websites that are accessible to individuals with disabilities is a violation of the ADA. Specifically, Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination based on disability in places that are open to the public and requires companies to eliminate barriers to access. Title III applies to most businesses, including hotels, restaurants, stores, office buildings, and medical, law, and accounting offices.
Eleventh Circuit Says Retailer s Website Does Not Have to Comply With the ADA | Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP jdsupra.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from jdsupra.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.