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
A District Court judge in Florida has granted a defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a class-action lawsuit involving alleged violations of the FairDebtCollection Practices Act and the Florida ConsumerCollection Protection Act.
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the summary judgment ruling in favor of a defendant that was sued for violating the FairDebtCollection Practices Act and the Florida ConsumerCollection Practices Act because of alleged misrepresentations made by another entity that was collecting on the defendant’s behalf.
A District Court judge in Florida has granted a defendant’s motion for summary judgment on most of the claims in a lawsuit accusing it of violating the FairDebtCollection Practices Act and the Florida ConsumerCollection Practices Act by misrepresenting that the collector was an attorney and by using obscene and profane language during … (..)
It will be interesting to see Defendant proceeds with the litigation and files a motion for summary judgment which will be able to be supported with facts from discovery. More details here. (The The allegation that sticks out the most is plaintiffs claim that the parking garage agreement was obscured.
Nevertheless, there appears to be an increase in class action complaints alleging violations of consumer protection laws such as FairDebtCollection Practices Act (FDCPA), Florida’s ConsumerCollections Practices Act (FCCPA), Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), or Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
The Florida ConsumerCollection Practices Act (FCCPA) and the FairDebtCollection Practices Act (FDCPA) are two pro-consumer statutes. Oftentimes, consumer lawyers bring claims for technical violations of the statutes, even when there are not any actual damages suffered by a consumer.
The Florida ConsumerCollection Practices Act (FCCPA) is a pro-consumer statute. Given the pro-consumer nature of the statute, one big consideration for defending against FCCPA claims is how to shift risk to the plaintiff. . As such, businesses need to be aware of the statute and the risk and liability of the statute.
BYL Collections isn’t a household name, but it collects for several businesses across multiple industries. Based in Westchester, Pennsylvania, BYL is a third-party collections agency that was founded in 1998. The agency specializes in consumercollections, commercial collections, and medical device recovery.
Attorneys and other entities that regularly engage in collection work for community associations may be subject to the requirements of the FairDebtCollection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. as well as analogous state laws governing the consumercollection process. And this it did not do, directly or otherwise.
The plaintiff claimed that this late-hour email violated both the FDCPA and the Florida ConsumerCollection Practices Act (FCCPA), which restrict communications with consumers outside certain hours. Specifically, under both acts, a debt collector may not communicate with a consumer between 9 p.m.
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