To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
Whether you represent FDCPA plaintiffs or defendants, recent decisions provide new insight on how standing issues may affect your case.
The doctrine of standing determining who is a proper plaintiff to bring a particular lawsuit seems straightforward. Most lawyers are familiar with the multi-pronged test flowing from the Supreme Court s 1992 decision in
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife: To have standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate an injury-in-fact, caused by the alleged wrongdoing, and capable of redress by the court.
But recent court decisions underscore the complexity of standing in the context of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Whether you represent FDCPA plaintiffs or defendants, the cases summarized below provide new insight on how standing issues may affect your case.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
The Sixth Circuit recently weighed in on whether there is a “benign language” exception to Section 1692f(8) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “FDCPA”). In
Donovan v. FirstCredit, Inc., No. 20-3485, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 39798 (6
th Cir. Dec. 18, 2020), the Court joined the Third and Seventh Circuits in holding that Section 1692f(8)’s plain text unambiguously prohibits markings on envelopes other than those necessary for sending communications through the mail.
In
Donovan, the debt collector sent a letter with two glassine windows. One of the windows revealed the consumer’s name and address. The other window revealed an empty checkbox followed by the phrase “Payment in full enclosed.” Depending on how the letter was situated, this second window sometimes also revealed an additional empty checkbox followed by “I need to discuss this further. My phone number is .”