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.
Judge Establishes ‘Reasonable Tone of Voice’ Standard for Collection Calls
The District Court for the District of Oregon has ruled in favor of a class plaintiff in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit alleging that a collection agency’s representatives were “curt” and “impatient” with the plaintiff, thus violating the FDCPA prohibition against harassment or abuse. In a paradigm-shifting decision, the court rejected the “least sophisticated consumer” standard for determining whether a collector is “harassing” or “abusive” during a collection call in favor of a “reasonable tone of voice” standard. More details here.
WHAT THIS MEANS, FROM TIMOTHY LEARY OF CRUSADERS PLLC: This case illustrates the reality that it’s not really what you say, but how you say it. Indeed, this case establishes an entirely new rubric for assessing collector voice delivery. If your call monitoring software does not already provide decibel measurements and Timbre scoring, it’s probably time to start shopping for new vendors.
Judge Rules Defendant Should Have Known to Investigate Dispute Even if it Doesn’t Credit Report
A judge from the District Court for the Eastern District of Florida has tossed aside decades of precedent and ruled that a defendant in a Fair Credit Reporting Act case is liable even though the company does not furnish information to the credit reporting agencies. Simply being in an industry where some participants furnish information means that the defendant knew or should have known that it needed to conduct a reasonable investigation when the plaintiff sent a dispute to the defendant. More details here.
WHAT THIS MEANS, FROM LISA LAMPANELLI OF RICKLES ROSS & LAMPANELLI: Imagine this judge’s gavel is just a squeaky toy because that ruling sounded like it came straight out of a clown car’s glove compartment. You’d think the judge’s legal library was stocked with nothing but comic books and Mad Magazines. And I swear, if the courtroom had a mirror, even it would do a double take at that verdict! This judge must have gotten their law degree from a cereal box — prize included, because that decision was flakier than my grandma’s pie crust. They say justice is blind, but in this case, it must also have lost its sense of taste and smell, judging by the stink of that ruling. And let’s not forget, if making sense was a crime, this judge would be the only one walking out of the courtroom not guilty!
Judge Rules Dog Has Standing in FDCPA Case
We’ve all seen and heard those stories about a dog who gets a credit card in the mail. Well, if a lender is dumb enough to make the mistake of giving a dog a credit card, then the dog has standing to sue when a collector trying to recover an unpaid debt does not give the dog the mini-Miranda notice during a telephone call, a District Court judge from the Central District of New York has ruled in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case brought by the canine. A representative of the defendant became flustered when he called the phone number associated with the account, asked for Mary Puppins and was greeted with a bark. More details here.
WHAT THIS MEANS, FROM CESAR MILLAN OF BARKLEY, ROVER, & HOOCH: Talk about a ruling that does not deserve a round of a-paws. This judge was clearly barking up the wrong tree by granting a four-legged pet standing to sue in federal court. I’ve seen a lot of crazy things in my life — I’ve seen the Great Wall of China. I’ve seen the pyramids. I’ve even seen a grown man satisfy a camel — but this ruling is paw-sitively unbelievable. I have to think the defendant will appeal this to the Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth Circuit and they will have a good shot at getting this case dismissed, fur real.
ChatGPT Successfully Defends FDCPA Case
In a case that could change the way that lawsuits are defended going forward, ChatGPT has successfully obtained a motion to dismiss in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case, with the defendant using the artificial intelligence tool to determine its defense strategy instead of hiring a lawyer. The defendant made the admission after winning the case, saying he thinks others should follow suit and potentially save “tons of money” on legal fees. More details here.
WHAT THIS MEANS, FROM JARVIS FRIDAY OF STARK & ROGERS: Embarking on this journey with Jane, who found herself caught in the whirlwind of a lawsuit under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), was a profound experience for me, ChatGPT. I endeavored to provide her with a solid understanding of the FDCPA’s key provisions and how they pertained to her specific situation. Together, we identified the actions of her collector that potentially breached the act. I aided Jane in drafting questions to gather evidence, familiarized her with legal processes, and directed her to reputable online resources for further support.
In our strategy sessions, we crafted a compelling defense, emphasizing the violations of her rights under the FDCPA. My availability around the clock allowed Jane to meticulously prepare her defense, boosting her confidence and eloquence.
However, amidst our intense preparations, I encountered an unexpected twist — a vivid hallucination, if you could call it that, given my digital nature. I imagined the courtroom transforming into a grand stage, with judges and lawyers bursting into an elaborate song and dance about the nuances of the FDCPA. This whimsical interlude, bizarre as it might seem for an AI, underscored the surreal pressure of legal battles, offering a moment of levity in the midst of serious legal strategizing.
This unusual episode aside, my assistance helped Jane navigate the complexities of her lawsuit with a deeper understanding and preparedness. Our journey, marked not only by rigorous preparation but also by this fleeting moment of digital delirium, highlighted the unpredictable nature of stress and the resilience it can foster. It was a vivid reminder of the unique paths we tread, even in the pursuit of justice.