I’m thrilled to announce that Bedard Law Group is the new sponsor for the Compliance Digest. Bedard Law Group, P.C. – Compliance Support – Defense Litigation – Nationwide Complaint Management – Turnkey Speech Analytics. And Our New BLG360 Program – Your Low Monthly Retainer Compliance Solution. Visit www.bedardlawgroup.com, email John H. Bedard, Jr., or call (678) 253-1871.
Every week, AccountsRecovery.net brings you the most important news in the industry. But, with compliance-related articles, context is king. That’s why the brightest and most knowledgable compliance experts are sought to offer their perspectives and insights into the most important news of the day. Read on to hear what the experts have to say this week.
Court Overrules Plaintiff’s Reconsideration Request in FDCPA Dispute
A District Court judge in Ohio has denied a plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration — among other rulings — in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case over an alleged unpaid apartment debt. More details here.
WHAT THIS MEANS, FROM DAVID SCHULTZ OF HINSHAW CULBERTSON: We’re all seeing more pro se opponents. They may not be effective litigants but they can create a mess. McComb v Lackey et al is one such case.
Plaintiff owed $2000 on an apartment lease. Several agencies and lawyers sought payment. In response to one, he sent a cease demand and an “invoice” for $5000 (the invoice was not paid). He eventually filed this case, which includes 6 defendants and 15 causes of action such as FDCPA, FCRA, TCPA, IRS Code, fraud, and invasion of privacy. In the span of eight months there have been 44 docket entries.
The court has made three substantive rulings. The most recent ruling denied 6 different motions plaintiff filed dealing with discovery, pleading and liability issues. However, plaintiff was successful on one motion; the court allowed him to amend to allege that his damages are $50 million and not the $75,000 he originally claimed.
The judge is keeping on top of the case and quickly issuing rulings, which helps. Regardless, this is a decent example of how difficult it can be to deal with a pro se.
THE COMPLIANCE DIGEST IS SPONSORED BY:
Indiana Appeals Court Affirms HOA Win in FDCPA Dispute
An Indiana Appeals Court has affirmed a ruling for a defendant, a homeowners association, that was accused of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, ruling the plaintiff, who represented herself, for the second time did not present “any evidence” regarding whether the HOA “violated the FDCPA.” More details here.
WHAT THIS MEANS, FROM MITCH WILLIAMSON OF BARRON & NEWBURGER: The takeaway here is when faced with a pro se litigant force them to provide details to support their allegations. This pro se made allegations she couldn’t support with facts or evidence. By way of example, she claimed the creditor’s affidavit was “hearsay” but went no further. She did not not provide it to the appellate court nor did she state what statements might qualify as hearsay. She raised a claim of an FDCPA violation but as stated by the Court, “other than her bald statements, she did not designate any evidence in support of her claims. Indeed, there is no indication in the record provided on appeal that she presented any evidence to the trial court, let alone any evidence that created a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the HOA violated the FDCPA.” All of other claims were equally deficient. Of note, Royal Oaks did not even bother to file opposition to the appeal.
This illustrates the primary way to deal with pro se’s – put them in a position as soon as possible to provide detailed facts and evidence regarding their claim. Often times you can get the Court to step in and short cut the litigation.
Court Allows Claims to Proceed Over Medical Debt Reporting Changes
A District Court judge in California has denied a motion to dismiss filed by the credit reporting agencies in a lawsuit over their decision to exclude medical debts under $500 from consumers’ credit reports. More details here.
WHAT THIS MEANS, FROM COOPER WALKER OF FROST ECHOLS: This is a case the industry will want to keep an eye on. Usually a denial of a Motion to Dismiss is not something we want to hear about, but this time we’re happy about it. A federal judge in California is allowing a case to move forward against the credit reporting agencies regarding their prior, blanket decision to exclude medical debts under $500 from consumer credit reports. A debt collection agency—as well as a few other Plaintiffs—argued that the credit reporting agencies tortiously interfered with their business relationships by not allowing credit reporting to go through. The Court found “it plausible that Defendants had some understanding that by eliminating certain aspects of debt-reporting, there may be a decrease in payment . . . .” This is a good ruling in a jurisdiction that is not always known for being fair and impartial towards the industry. It will be interesting to see how the credit reporting agencies react now that they are forced to litigate this issue.
Judge Refuses Sanctions, Striking Motions in Ongoing FCRA Dispute
A District Court judge in Virginia has denied a number of plaintiff’s motions in a Fair Credit Reporting Act case, including one seeking sanctions against the defendant. More details here.
WHAT THIS MEANS, FROM LORAINE LYONS OF MARTIN GOLDEN LYONS WATTS MORGAN: Courts extend procedural flexibility and guidance to pro se litigants, unlike represented counsel, to promote access to justice while holding attorneys accountable for precision. This disparity, rooted in court precedent, aims to balance fairness but can burden opponents, as seen in Simpson’s aggressive tactics met with measured judicial responses.=
Minnesota Court Rejects FDCPA Claim Over Statute of Limitations Disclosure
A District Court judge in Minnesota has granted a defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings after it was accused of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act over a disclosure in a collection notice that advised the plaintiff that the statute of limitations on the debt had expired and that he could not be sued to collect. More details here.
WHAT THIS MEANS, FROM JEFF TOPOR OF WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON: Many consumers assume that, if the statute of limitations has run, they’re no longer liable for a debt and can’t be asked to pay it. But that’s not always the case. As many courts have said, the running of the statute of limitations extinguishes only the remedy, it does not eliminate the obligation. In other words, while it may be too late to sue to collect an unpaid obligation, the obligation still exists. Non-judicial efforts to obtain payment may still be allowed. But, if you’re going to ask a consumer to pay a time-barred debt, be aware of any requirements that you inform them that the debt is too old to sue on or too old to credit report. Likewise, a statement regarding the effect of a voluntary payment by the consumer – which may restart the statute of limitations (a complicated analysis in itself) – may be required. In sum, be careful when making such statements, or other statements bearing on the validity of the debt and the ability to enforce it judicially.
Court Permits Late Amendment In FCRA Suit
A Magistrate Court judge in Oregon has granted a plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint in order to change the defendant in a Fair Credit Reporting Act case. More details here.
WHAT THIS MEANS, FROM MICHAEL CHAPMAN OF BASSFORD REMELE: In Moon v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, the Eastern District of Missouri granted summary judgment for the debt buyer, holding that 23 calls over eleven months (made during lawful hours and without threats) do not constitute harassment under the FDCPA. The court additionally reaffirmed that attempting to collect a potentially time-barred debt is not unlawful absent a threat of litigation, and rejected unsupported allegations of third-party disclosures. The decision also highlights a threshold issue often overlooked by plaintiffs: FDCPA coverage requires proof that the debt was incurred for personal, family, or household purposes, which the plaintiff failed to establish.
CFPB FDCPA Report Offers Insights Into Complaint Trends
One of the most attention-getting insights from the CFPB’s 2025 FDCPA Annual Report is that collectors, in some cases, continued placing more than 100 calls after a consumer asked them to stop. While still infrequent across the industry, this type of finding is the kind of example regulators highlight to help organizations refine policies and strengthen compliance controls. The Bureau’s analysis shows how consumer expectations are evolving and where the industry has the greatest chances to improve communication, timing, and documentation practices. More details here.
WHAT THIS MEANS, FROM LESLIE BENDER OF EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND: The CFPB’s 2025 Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Annual Report summarizes the agency’s 2024 activities prior to its leadership change. The findings remain important as state lawmakers prepare for the 2026 legislative session, with some poised to address perceived gaps in federal consumer protection.
The CFPB received approximately 207,800 debt collection complaints in 2024 (7% of total complaints). The most common issue was attempts to collect debt not owed (45%), with consumers reporting the debt wasn’t theirs (60%) or resulted from identity theft (28%). Supervisory examinations identified multiple FDCPA violations, including failures to provide debt validation notices, false or misleading representations, and communications at prohibited times or through prohibited mediums.
Significant findings included credit card issuers misrepresenting the statute of limitations as ten years rather than five years when selling debts to collectors, including expired accounts. The FTC was the only agency announcing public enforcement actions in 2024, including a case against a Georgia-based collector that allegedly threatened consumers over fictitious debts, extracting more than $7.6 million. The report also highlights disparities affecting American Indian and Native Alaskan communities, where almost 25% have medical debt collections as their only reported delinquencies, above the nationwide average.
State AGs Push Back Against Federal Proposal to Limit AI Regulation
A bipartisan coalition of 36 state attorneys general is urging Congress to reject proposals that would block states from creating or enforcing laws governing artificial intelligence. The message came in a letter sent last week to Congressional leadership, warning that a federal moratorium on state AI regulation would jeopardize public safety and prevent states from responding quickly to emerging risks. More details here.
Washington AI Task Force Releases Aggressive Policy Roadmap as States Take the Lead on Regulation
In a move that underscores just how quickly states are stepping in as federal oversight stalls, Washington’s Artificial Intelligence Task Force has released an interim report calling for sweeping AI regulation across sectors from healthcare to law enforcement. The Task Force’s recommendations are some of the most comprehensive in the country, laying out transparency mandates, rules for high-risk AI systems, and new limits on automated decision-making in areas like healthcare and employment. More details here.
WHAT THIS MEANS, FROM STEFANIE JACKMAN OF TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE: Two weeks after the AGs sent this letter, on December 11th, President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence”. The President’s order seeks to prevent states from enforcing state AI laws that the Trump administration determines are “onerous” because they exceed the power of the state(s) to regulate or threaten the United States’ global AI dominance. The order directs the federal government to act against states with “onerous” state AI laws primarily by challenging them in court and withholding federal funding from those states.
There currently is no existing national policy framework for AI and, to date, Congress has not made meaningful progress on one (or AI or data privacy and security more generally). Effective and consistent AI regulations and protection are essential, but I doubt we will see any materialize anytime soon.
I’m thrilled to announce that Bedard Law Group is the new sponsor for the Compliance Digest. Bedard Law Group, P.C. – Compliance Support – Defense Litigation – Nationwide Complaint Management – Turnkey Speech Analytics. And Our New BLG360 Program – Your Low Monthly Retainer Compliance Solution. Visit www.bedardlawgroup.com, email John H. Bedard, Jr., or call (678) 253-1871.
