CRA_DR_Blue_V2.0.jpg
Intelicrunch_Banner_Header.jpg

Sixth and Ninth Circuits Issue Decisions Applying Spokeo to FDCPA and FCRA Claims


Earlier this month, in Buchholz v. Meyer Njus Tanick, P.A., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision that a plaintiff who alleged that the defendant had violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), failed to allege a concrete injury in fact sufficient to confer Article III standing. The plaintiff alleged the defendant law firm violated the FDCPA by sending him two letters regarding overdue payments he owed on two accounts. The plaintiff alleged that the law firm processed such a high volume of debt collection correspondence that its attorneys could not engage in a meaningful review of underlying accounts even though the letters created the impression that an attorney had reviewed the file.

The plaintiff further alleged that he suffered anxiety from reading the letters and from fearing litigation. The Sixth Circuit rejected plaintiff’s argument that he had standing to sue. The plaintiff did not dispute the accuracy of the information in the letters or that he owed the debts. The Court found that because the plaintiff had not alleged that the letters threatened litigation or that he had refused to pay the past due amounts owed, the alleged harm was speculative and the letters did not cause any actionable harm that would constitute a procedural violation under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo and his “self-inflicted injury” did not create standing. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit found that the district court had properly dismissed the complaint for lack of Article III standing.

On the flip side, in Bultemeyer v. CenturyLink, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court’s finding that the plaintiff lacked Article III standing to bring a lawsuit alleging that the defendant violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by obtaining her credit report without a permissible purpose and without the required authorization. The district court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a concrete injury in fact sufficient to satisfy Article III standing under Spokeo and dismissed her claim. The District Court determined that the defendant “did nothing with the information that would harm” the plaintiff and found that the plaintiff alleged only “a bare procedural violation without identifying any concrete harm.” FULL ARTICLE

© 2020  InteliCrunch.com

InteliCrunch is a free service provided by a collective of people who monitor the background screening industry and how events affect not only the people in it, but even more importantly, the real human impact the industry has on today's society.*All third party logos and / or images used on this website are the sole property and / or registered trademarks of their respective companies or copyright holders. Use of these logos, images or likenesses does not, in any way, imply the endorsement of InteliCrunch by any of the businesses, brands or individuals represented, their parent companies, officers, employees, partners, or affiliates. Any such usage is for informational / news purposes only.  Any / all articles, announcements, releases or third-party-authored content is / are linked back to the original "source"  and author credit given  Furthermore, InteliCrunch is not responsible for, and does not warrant the safety of any third-party links or sites to which any viewer may be directed from InteliCrunch.  InteliCrunch has made reasonable efforts to ensure that any news or informational links on the site are from "known and reputable"  sources / websites.