On August 13, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit reversed a lower court’s ruling that awarded damages and attorneys’ fees to a consumer who received a debt collection letter after requesting no further contact. The consumer alleged the letter violated the “ceasing communication” provision — Section 1692c(c) — of the FDCPA. The panel held that receipt of a single, statutorily-required letter sent in response to the consumer’s dispute of a debt did not constitute a “concrete injury” sufficient to establish Article III standing.
The panel explained that the debt collector sent the letter after the consumer disputed the debt in writing, which triggered the debt collector’s obligation under the FCRA to verify the debt and respond directly to the consumer.
The court reasoned the communication, which verified the debt as required by law, amounted to an “intrusion upon seclusion,” or rose to the level of harm requisite for standing. The court also emphasized that the consumer’s no-contact request could not override the debt collector’s statutory duty to respond to a credit report dispute. Accordingly, the 8th Circuit vacated the district court’s ruling and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss for lack of standing.
[View source.]
