A federal judge last week certified a class action that accuses a mortgage services company of violating the FDCPA by leaving a message on a door hanger for a consumer to call a specific number. The note made no mention of the debt, although it was left specifically for that purpose.
On the heels of a June 30 decision finding that a New Jersey law firm violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because its attorneys spent four seconds reviewing a pleading, a complaint seeking class certification has been filed against the same firm, citing findings of fact from the adverse court opinion.
The Federal Trade Commission Tuesday announced that it has won a court judgment and entered settlements with a scam debt collection agency and its owners that officially shutters and liquidates the business for good and permanently bars the owners and principals from working in debt collection ever again.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals Monday denied a petition to rehear an FDCPA case that involved an account number being visible through the clear window of an envelope containing a debt collection letter.
A district judge in New York this week certified a class action TCPA case against a debt collection agency where the defendant argued it had express prior consent to call a cell phone because the plaintiff had provided that number to the creditor. The ruling referenced and ignored an FCC order that allowed for autodialed calls to cell phones with express consent.
The FTC and the CFPB both announced enforcement actions Wednesday against separate payday lenders for very similar behavior, namely funding unapproved loans for consumers who did not request them and then taking payments directly from checking accounts, also without approval. And for questionable debt sales and collection practices, of course.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) said Tuesday that it has sued for-profit college operator Corinthian Colleges, Inc. for creating a loan program that was so complicated in structure, it actually exposed Corinthian to liability under the FDCPA as a collection agency. The company is also accused of a host of other financial violations.
In a split decision, the First Circuit Court of Appeals last week upheld a lower court ruling that a collection letter send by a law firm violated the FDCPA because it gave the impression that the consumer could not dispute the debt and that payment was the only option to avoid litigation.
Debt collection law firm Frederick J. Hanna & Associates filed a motion Friday to dismiss an enforcement action initiated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The CFPB’s lawsuit accused the firm of filing too many collection lawsuits, which it said was a violation of the FDCPA.