Early in the morning on July 28, 2016, in coordination with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (the "Bureau") field hearing on debt collection being held the same day in Sacramento, California, the Bureau released a detailed outline of proposals under consideration for debt collection rulemaking. While the proposals only cover third-party debt collection issues, the Bureau indicated that they plan to address first-party collectors and creditors with similar proposals at a later date. We expect that many of the same principles outlined in the third-party proposals will ...
In Hernandez v. Williams, Zinman & Parham PC, No. 14-15672, -- F.3d --, 2016 WL 3913445 (9th Cir. July 20, 2016), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that each subsequent debt collector is required to send a § 1692g(a) validation notice within five days of its initial communication with a consumer, even if the validation notice has been previously provided to the debtor by another debt collector for the subject debt. The Ninth Circuit's ruling is the first published opinion by a federal court of appeals addressing this issue.[1]
The ruling interpreted section 1692g(a) of the Fair ...
Following the Supreme Court's ruling in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (U.S. May 16, 2016), it is clear that "Article III standing requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation," such that a plaintiff cannot "allege a bare procedural violation, divorced from any concrete harm, and satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III." Id. at 1549. Yet, the Court did not go so far as to rule that "the risk of real harm cannot satisfy the requirement of concreteness," and instead recognized that "the violation of a procedural right granted by statute can ...