Benefitfocus Names John Park to Board of Directors globenewswire.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from globenewswire.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
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
3rd Cir. Holds No FDCPA Violation When Non-Interest-Bearing Debt Itemized ‘$0.00’ for Interest Published on: 21 April 2021 at 09:00 a.m. ET April 21, 2021, 9 a.m. April 21, 2021, 9:46 a.m. insideARM.com The iA Institute
and is republished here with permission.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a class action complaint alleging that a collection letter’s itemization of a debt as including “$0.00” in interest and fees when the debt could not accrue interest or fees violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
In so ruling, the Third Circuit concluded that the inclusion of line items listing $0.00 in the form letter’s interest and fees columns did not mislead the consumer to believe that he may owe interest or fees in the future in violation of the FDCPA’s prohibition on deceptive (§ 1692e) and unfair or unconscionable (§ 1692f) means of collecting consumer debts, ev
CFPB Submits 2020 Report to Congress; Highlights Consumer Focus, Enforcement Actions insidearm.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from insidearm.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
The Eastern District of New York recently decided a motion to dismiss, denying Defendant’s motion as to Plaintiff’s claims under the FCRA and dismissing Plaintiff’s claims under the FDCPA. A copy of the Court’s opinion can be found here. This case involved claims concerning a disputed tradeline on Plaintiff’s credit report. The Court found that Plaintiff, as he submitted his credit dispute
through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) portal, which then could have been transmitted to a consumer reporting agency, sufficiently alleged that he submitted his credit dispute to a consumer reporting agency. The Court further found that, as Plaintiff failed to show any communication from Defendant to a consumer reporting agency that failed to report the debt as disputed, Plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege a claim under the FDCPA.