Another favorable ruling for the industry in the area of disputes that aren’t actually disputes, and another notch in the belt of why recording calls is good for collection operations … A District Court judge in Oklahoma has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case on the grounds that the plaintiff did not, in fact, dispute the debt during an interaction with a representative of the defendant like she claimed.
The Background: In March 2023, the plaintiff checked her credit report on Credit Karma and noticed a debt from the defendant in regard to an unpaid credit card debt. The same day, the plaintiff contacted the defendant. During the call, which was recorded by the defendant, the plaintiff said she had some questions regarding the information on her credit report.
- First, she questioned how the debt had reached $472 when the limit on her card was $300. The representative replied, “I’m seeing interest charges on it – that’s probably why it accumulated.”
- The plaintiff then concluded the call by saying, “Okay. Thanks for your time. Have a nice day.”
- A few months later, the plaintiff checked her credit report again and noted that the account was not being reported as disputed. That same day, she filed her lawsuit against the defendant, claiming the defendant violated Section 1692e(8) of the FDCPA.
- The plaintiff claimed that because she did not agree with the amount that was owed, she was disputing the debt. The publishing of inaccurate information severely damaged the plaintiff’s personal and credit reputation and caused severe humiliation, and emotional distress and anguish, according to her complaint.
The Ruling: Judge Scott K. Palk of the District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma made short work of the plaintiff’s argument that she disputed the debt during the call with the defendant. Reviewing the recording of the call, Judge Palk wrote, “Plaintiff made an inquiry as to the balance on her Capital One Account. When the agent responded that the balance exceeded her credit limit due to accumulated interest, Plaintiff did not challenge that response in any way, but instead concluded the call saying ‘thanks for your time’ and ‘have a nice day.’ ”
- “… it is clear that Plaintiff did not dispute the Capital One Account and no reasonable factfinder could conclude otherwise,” the judge wrote, dismissing the case for lack of standing.
