The State of California legislature has amended its requirements for debt collectors who receive consumer claims of identity theft. The law, labeled the Identity Theft Resolution Act, was signed by the Governor on September 16, 2016. The law becomes effective on Jan. 1, 2017.
The issue of whether debt collectors may email consumers is finally being given serious consideration by regulators. The latest podcast from John Rossman and Mike Poncin of Moss & Barnett drills down into the current legal landscape regarding the use of email for debt collection communication and provide specific steps for collection agencies to begin the use of email to contact consumers.
The Seventh Circuit found that the validation notice violated § 1692e because the validation notice was misleading to an unsophisticated consumer as to the appropriate time and manner for responding to the complaint.
Last week the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for the Plaintiff in Daugherty v. Convergent Outsourcing Incorporated; LVNV Funding, LLC, a case about what a collection letter did not say.
The Federal Trade Commission’s workshop “Putting Disclosures to the Test” is taking place tomorrow, Sept. 15, 2016, in Washington. The workshop will feature research on the effectiveness of disclosures made to consumers in a variety of areas from advertising to privacy policies. According to the workshop announcement, the FTC has a long commitment to understanding […]
Debt collection agencies are subject to regulation (and potential enforcement actions) from at the federal, state – and in some cases – local level. Keeping up with potential changes can be challenging. Recent developments include activity in Montana, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Maryland.
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — Stellar Recovery secured an important court victory this month which significantly reduces the legal risk associated with the use of telephone dialing technologies to contact consumers. As those in the collection industry are well aware, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) prohibits the use of automatic telephone dialing systems (“ATDS”) when calling cellular telephones. Just what […]
insideARM maintains a free FDCPA resources page to provide the ARM community a destination for timely and topical information on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). This page is generously supported by TransUnion. See the page here or find it in our main navigation bar from any page on insideARM. The cornerstone of the page is a chart of […]
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia recently held that, under the FDCPA, a collection letter from a law firm did not misrepresent any meaningful involvement by an attorney. Because the letter clearly stated that the law firm was acting as a debt collector, and that no attorney with the law firm had reviewed the debtor’s account, the D.C. Circuit held the letter was not deceptive as a matter of law.
In a split decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently held that “filing a proof of claim in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy based on a debt that is time-barred does not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when the statute of limitations does not extinguish the debt.”