Each week, ACA International’s compliance team covers relevant case summaries for ACA members. Members may also submit cases for consideration to our compliance team at [email protected]. Here are the cases covered July 27 – July 30: July 27 Cunningham v. Creative Edge: Judge Affirms No Article III Standing, Motion For Default DeniedA judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas again found a TCPA plaintiff lacks standing for claims, consistent with the Creasy decision, one day after a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas took the contrary position and found a TCPA plaintiff did have standing for claims arising during the key time period between 2015 and 2020. Continue reading the summary here.  Stewart v. Network Cap. Funding: An Expression of Disinterest Does Not Revoke ConsentA consumer stated a telemarketer contacted him using an ATDS after he revoked consent. The court found that the consumer did not allege enough facts for the court to consider whether the telemarketer used an ATDS and was disinterested in the request to revoke consent. Continue reading the summary here. June 28 Webb v. AWA Collections: Court Dismisses Consumer’s FDCPA Claims The debt collector attempted to collect a medical debt from the consumer, who then claimed the debt collector violated several provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and filed a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The debt collector removed the account from the consumer’s credit report and closed the account in response to the CFPB complaint. The consumer then sued the debt collector for violating the FDCPA. Continue reading the summary here. Jones v. State Farm: TCPA Claim Survives Plaintiff’s Death, Amendment Not Futile In a Telephone Consumer Protection Act action, the representative of a deceased plaintiff’s estate was permitted to amend the complaint to substitute the representative in place of the plaintiff because the factual support contained in the complaint met the standard for pleading under Rule 12(b)(6). Continue reading the summary here. July 29Bonner v. Radius Global Solutions: Collection Letter Not Misleading Under FDCPA The consumer defaulted on a home improvement loan. The debt collector attempted to collect the debt and sent a letter to the consumer, who claimed it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Continue reading the summary here. FDCPA Mailing Vendor Cases: NY Court Finds Multiple Hunstein-type Plaintiffs Lack Standing In dismissing multiple actions because the plaintiffs lack Article III standing, the court found (1) Hunstein was instructive but not binding upon courts in the 2nd Circuit, (2) the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Ramirez cast significant doubt on the continued viability of Hunstein, and (3) even if valid, Hunstein may not apply to the facts of the instant cases. Continue reading the summary here.  July 30 Troy v. Equifax: Court Allows Claims of Negligent and Willful Violation of FCRA to Proceed The consumer informed the CRA that he no longer disputed a debt on his credit report. The CRA did not remove the disputed notation from the consumer’s credit report. The consumer alleges the CRA did not conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of his claim. Continue reading the summary here. Haynes v. TransUnion: Plaintiff’s FDCPA & FCRA Claims Survive Motion to Dismiss General factual allegations of injury are sufficient at the pleading stage, and even threadbare recitations of facts may suffice. Continue reading the summary here.       If you’ve recently obtained a judicial opinion that might benefit other ACA members, email it to us: [email protected]. Join the discussion on legal and compliance topics with your fellow members on the Members Attorney Program community on The Hub. Simply log on to The Hub and select Members Attorney Program under the Communities menu. ACA’s Daily Decision is powered by ACA’s Litigation Advocacy and Compliance Teams.