Consumer Law Hinsights is a monthly compilation of nationwide consumer protection cases of interest to financial services and accounts receivable management companies.
Eleventh Circuit Delivers Surprising Decision on Use of Third-Party Vendors in FDCPA Case
The district court dismissed the case for lack of standing and Hunstein appealed. The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the requirements of standing could be met in one of three ways: 1) tangible harm in the form of physical injury, financial loss, or emotional distress; 2) a risk of real harm requiring factual allegations that establish substantial, significant, or real danger; and 3) statutory violations. The court found that while Hunstein failed to establish either tangible harm or risk of real harm, he did establish a statutory violation that granted him standing. Their statutory violation analysis involved looking at history and the judgment of Congress. The court took a very textualist view of the law and surprisingly
3rd Cir. Holds No FDCPA Violation When Non-Interest-Bearing Debt Itemized ‘$0.00’ for Interest Published on: 21 April 2021 at 09:00 a.m. ET April 21, 2021, 9 a.m. April 21, 2021, 9:46 a.m. insideARM.com The iA Institute
and is republished here with permission.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a class action complaint alleging that a collection letter’s itemization of a debt as including “$0.00” in interest and fees when the debt could not accrue interest or fees violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
In so ruling, the Third Circuit concluded that the inclusion of line items listing $0.00 in the form letter’s interest and fees columns did not mislead the consumer to believe that he may owe interest or fees in the future in violation of the FDCPA’s prohibition on deceptive (§ 1692e) and unfair or unconscionable (§ 1692f) means of collecting consumer debts, ev