Plaintiff Files Reg F, FDCPA Lawsuits Alleging Violations of Rule Months Before it Went Into Effect

A pair of lawsuits that have been filed against different collection agencies highlights an interesting trend that has occurred in a number of cases involving alleged violations of Regulation F — specifically situations where a plaintiff’s claims relate to incidents or events that took place before November 30, 2021, when the rule went into effect. In these two lawsuits, for example, the plaintiff is claiming that two different collection agencies violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in California, and Reg F by attempting to collect debts — and reporting them to credit reporting agencies — that the plaintiff did not owe. But all of the alleged infractions occurred months before Reg F went into effect.

A copy of the complaint in the case of Tyler v. Capio Partners can be accessed by clicking here. A copy of the complaint in the case of Tyler v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions can be accessed by clicking here.

In both cases, the plaintiff alleges the defendants violated Sections 1692e(2), 1692e(10), and 1692f of the FDCPA, Section 1788.17 of the Rosenthal FDCPA, and Section 1006.18 of Regulation F by attempting to collect debts that the plaintiff claims he did not owe.

In one case, the defendant began reporting the debt to the credit reporting agencies even though the plaintiff claims it did not belong to him. A dispute was filed with one of the credit reporting agencies, which notified the defendant. An investigation by the defendant allegedly confirmed that the debt was being accurately reported and the defendant began attempting to contact the plaintiff to collect on the alleged debt.

In the other case, the defendant sent a collection letter to the plaintiff, attempting to collect on a separate debt, which the plaintiff claims he did not owe or incur. In this suit, the plaintiff did not claim that he disputed the debt or even attempted to contact the defendant to obtain more information or notify the defendant that the debt was not his.

While the industry waits for a wave of lawsuits that it expected to be filed alleging violations of Regulation F once it went into effect, it seems as though it will have to deal with suits that claim violations of the rule even though it was not in effect when the alleged transgressions occurred.

Check Also

Wash. Appeals Court Overturns Ruling for Collector

The Court of Appeals for the State of Washington has reversed a lower court’s ruling …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

X