We’ve all had transactions go sideways. Products we purchased take longer to be shipped or received. They don’t look like they did on the website. Or, sometimes, they never make it to you for one reason or another. It can be upsetting. But upset consumers still need to direct their anger in the right direction. A District Court judge in Louisiana has dismissed a lawsuit accusing a fintech lender of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act after a dispute involving a financed pool table that allegedly was never delivered.
The background: The plaintiff financed the purchase of a pool table through the defendant but later claimed the table was lost in transit. The plaintiff received a partial refund from the vendor that was applied toward the loan balance but did not pay the remaining balance owed on the financing agreement.
- When the loan became overdue, the defendant charged off the debt and reported the delinquency to consumer reporting agencies. The plaintiff alleged the reporting negatively impacted his credit score and quality of life.
- The plaintiff continued disputing the circumstances surrounding the delivery of the pool table and argued the defendant should not have held him responsible for the remaining balance.
- The court noted the plaintiff appeared to have used artificial intelligence to determine that defendant should not have reported the debt.
The ruling: Judge Jay C. Zainey of the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana ruled that the plaintiff failed to state a viable claim under either the FDCPA or FCRA.
- On the FDCPA claim, the judge found the defendant was the original creditor that provided financing for the transaction and was not a company whose principal purpose was debt collection.
- Judge Zainey also rejected the plaintiff’s FCRA allegations, finding there were no facts showing the defendant furnished inaccurate information to the credit reporting agencies. The ruling noted the plaintiff failed to allege that he submitted a dispute through a credit reporting agency that would have triggered the defendant’s investigation duties under Section 1681s-2(b).
- The judge pointed out that the plaintiff later submitted a complaint to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but that filing occurred after the lawsuit had already been filed and did not result in relief in the plaintiff’s favor.
- The court additionally dismissed state law claims for unfair trade practices and emotional distress, finding the allegations did not come close to the type of extreme or deceptive conduct required under Louisiana law.
