In this month’s newsletter:

• Eleventh Circuit Vacates Dismissal of FDCPA Case and Finds that Wasted Time and Emotional Distress Can Confer Article III Standing

• Additional Disclosure Requirements in Massachusetts for Debt Buyers

• Eighth Circuit Rejects Attorney's Attempt to Expand the Scope of Third-Party Disclosure Violations

• Court Finds That Use of the Model Validation Notice is Not Required to Comply with Regulation F

• How to Defeat FDCPA Lawsuits Today: New Strategies + Proven Techniques (The Debt Collection Drill videocast)

• Aylix Jensen and Moss & Barnett are Proud to Support Women in Consumer Finance 2022

In an unpublished, per curiam decision, the Eleventh Circuit found that wasted time and loss of sleep can confer Article III standing. See Toste v. The Beach Club at Fontainebleau Park Condominium Assoc., Inc., et al., No. 21-14348, 2022 WL 4091738 (11th Cir. Sept. 7, 2022). In Toste, the plaintiff fell behind on his monthly payments to his condominium association and the matter was referred to the defendants for collection. The defendants first attempted to collect the debt by threatening to file a claim of lien against the plaintiff’s condominium and then filed a claim of lien and threatened to foreclose on it if the plaintiff did not pay more than $10,000 in past-due association fees, interest, late fees, attorney’s fees, and costs. MORE >

On September 15, 2022, Encore Capital Group, Inc. (“Encore”) entered into an Assurance of Discontinuance with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (“Assurance”) based on Encore’s alleged debt collection practices in Massachusetts. As a result of the investigation, the Attorney General concluded that Encore engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and practices in connection with the collection of debts pursuant to G.L. c. 93A, § 2, 940 C.M.R. 7.00 et seq., and G.L. c. 93, § 49. In lieu of litigation, Encore entered into the Assurance with the Attorney General and agreed to pay a total of $4.5 million to the Commonwealth. MORE >

In Magdy v. I.C. System, Inc., the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a plaintiff’s complaint on the basis that the plaintiff, a non-consumer, lacked standing to bring his claim under section 1692c(b) of the FDCPA. In Magdy, the defendant debt collector sent a collection letter to the plaintiff, a bankruptcy attorney, identifying him as the attorney for a consumer named in the letter. As it turned out, the consumer identified in the letter was not the plaintiff’s client nor had there been any indication that the plaintiff was the consumer’s attorney. As a result, the plaintiff filed suit in Missouri state court asserting that the defendant violated section 1692c(b) by contacting the plaintiff regarding the debt of a consumer whom he did not represent, without the consumer’s consent. The plaintiff claimed that he suffered an injury as a result of the defendant’s actions because of the valuable time and resources he spent trying to determine if he had ever represented the consumer.  MORE >