The Fourth Circuit recently examined the issue of Article III standing in the context of the FDCPA. In Ben-Davies v. Blibaum & Associates, P.A., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9667 (4th Cir. June 1, 2017), the consumer sought to...more
6/7/2017
/ Article III ,
Consumer Financial Products ,
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Debt Buyers ,
Debt Collection ,
Debt Collectors ,
FDCPA ,
Federal Rule 12(b)(1) ,
Financial Services Industry ,
Injury-in-Fact ,
Standing ,
Third-Party Service Provider
As required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB is conducting an assessment of its RESPA Mortgage Servicing Final Rule, which took effect on January 10, 2014. The assessment will seek to compare servicer and consumer activities...more
This week the CFPB filed suit in the Northern District of Ohio against Weltman, Weinberg & Reis, an Ohio law firm. The complaint is a continuation of the CFPB’s attack on collection law firms and their level of meaningful...more
An Illinois district court has taken a broad view of standing under section 1692e of the FDCPA. In Koval v. Harris & Harris, Ltd., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53124 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 5, 2017), a demand letter addressed to Michael...more
A consumer who sued a debt collector over an inaccurate statement as to the amount of a settlement offer recently saw his complaint dismissed for lack of standing. In Allgire v. HOVG, LLC, the plaintiff was contacted...more
In a brief opinion, the Eleventh Circuit recently examined Regulation X’s requirement that a loan servicer provide a written response acknowledging receipt of a written request for information (“RFI”) pursuant to 12 C.F.R....more
A summons which stated the consumer had thirty days to answer a debt collection suit did not violate the FDCPA when the state rules of civil procedure only provided for twenty days. In Bryant v. Kass Shuler, P.A., the...more
A recent district court opinion from Michigan makes clear that statutory violations of the FDCPA do not absolve a plaintiff from the need to show a concrete injury in order to establish Article III standing. In Johnston v....more
The CFPB issued its monthly report on consumer complaints last week. The report is a high-level snapshot of trends in consumer complaints. The Reportprovides a summary of the volume of complaints by product category, by...more
The CFPB continues to flex its muscle and expand its reach, this time punishing a prepaid card provider and its vendor for a conversion to a new system that did not go as planned. The consent order, which was entered into...more
A district court out of Missouri has served up a reminder as to the limitations of a motion to dismiss based upon subject matter jurisdiction. In May v. Consumer Adjustment Co., the consumer filed an FDCPA complaint is state...more
2/13/2017
/ Article III ,
Debt Collection ,
Demand Letter ,
FDCPA ,
Financial Institutions ,
Financial Services Industry ,
Injury-in-Fact ,
Motion to Dismiss ,
Spokeo v Robins ,
Standing ,
Subject Matter Jurisdiction