This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
With these holdings, the Seventh Circuit stated that simply alleging a procedural violation, confusion, or annoyance under the FDCPA does not constitute an injury-in-fact and that plaintiffs need to show real harm resulting from their responses to debtcollectors’ actions to have Article III standing in federal court. In Bazile v.
Hollins LawFirm , _F.3d There, the collection lawfirm defendant communicated with plaintiff on a number of occasions, and each time the firm identified itself as a “debtcollector,” as required by section 1692e(11) of the FDCPA. Thank You,” without specifically reciting he was a “debtcollector.”
By Zachary Dunn The FDCPA prohibits a debtcollector from using “any false, deceptive, or misleading representation” in connection with the collection of a debt. Though all statements in ARS’ letter were factually correct – including the statement that Islam’s debt was $14,413.78 See 15 U.S.C. In Islam v.
Duty to disclose accruinginterest, fees or other charges A significant recent trend in FDCPA case law involves courts that have imposed new disclosure obligations that are not found in the plain language of the Act. 2017) was subject to the FDCPA, because it was not sent solely to enforce a security interest.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 19,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content