In a change of course, the Utah court of appeals has reversed the dismissal of a plaintiffs’ suit against a debt collector based on its alleged failure to register as a collection agency prior to filing collection suits. While the Utah Collection Agency Act (UCAA) was repealed by the Utah legislature last year, discussed here, cases asserting this theory of liability remain pending before state and federal courts in the state. Late last year, in Meneses v. Salander Enterprises LLC, discussed here, the court of appeals held that a violation of the UCAA was not a deceptive or unconscionable act. The court distinguished this case from Meneses by finding that the defendant made affirmative representations in the lawsuits at issue that precluded dismissal at this stage.
Read the Whole Story »
On January 2, New York Governor Kathy Hochul unveiled her 2024 consumer protection agenda, which includes plans to regulate the “buy now, pay later” (BNPL) industry. Specifically, Governor Hochul plans to propose legislation to require BNPL providers to be licensed in the state and to authorize the New York State Department of Financial Services to propose and issue regulations for the industry. According to Governor Hochul, “New Yorkers are increasingly turning to [BNPL] loans as a low-cost alternative to traditional credit products to pay for everyday and big-ticket purchases. This legislation and regulations will establish strong industry protections around disclosure requirements, dispute resolution and credit reporting standards, late fee limits, consumer data privacy, and guidelines to curtail dark patterns and debt accumulation and overextension.”
Read the Whole Story »
On December 5, the U.S. District Court of New Jersey dismissed an FDCPA suit brought against a debt collector. According to the opinion, plaintiff originally filed suit because they received a letter from defendant regarding an outstanding cell phone bill. The letter provided instructions on what to do if the recipient suspected identity theft. Additionally, the letter contained a summary of plaintiff’s account and a QR code that linked to defendant’s website for online payment. Plaintiff contended that the dual approach of offering assistance while simultaneously pursuing collection of a debt was false and misleading. A District Court judge, however, disagreed and dismissed the case, at which point the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
Read the Whole Story »
