News & Resources

Sessions, Israel & Shartle proudly announces that for the fifth year running Whitney White, a partner in our Dallas Office, has been named by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Consumer Law.

While most are still recovering from the 11/10/21 Reg. F deadline and the time, effort and expense of gearing up, we all believed that once the work was done, we would have clear rules and a “safe harbor” that would result in fewer silly lawsuits – especially with the Model Notice. Wrong!

What happens when a debt collector sends a letter to a lawyer on behalf of that lawyer’s debtor-client, and the letter potentially violates the FDCPA? According to one court in New York, nothing.

In a first, a Chancery Court judge for Cook County, Illinois has ruled that an opt-opt notice contained within a collection e-mail satisfied Reg. F’s dual requirements of describing a simple opt out process and providing a clear and conspicuous opt-out disclosure.

In a contract dispute, not a consumer defense case, a federal trial court in Illinois just confirmed what was suspected but not entirely clear in Regulation F – the CFPB model notice is more of a suggestion than a legal requirement.

Is this the new Hunstein, where a widely used practice generally accepted as compliant suddenly becomes a risk? A federal trial court in Chicago concluded that a debt collector could be violating the FDCPA when broadcasting a local area code on its Caller ID when the caller did not have a physical presence in that area.

The April 21, 2021 Hunstein v. Preferred Collection and Management Services Inc. 3-judge ruling issued from the federal 11th Circuit Court of Appeals started a tidal wave of litigation. The court first found that transmitting a data file to a letter vendor could violate the FDCPA with the improper the disclosure of information about the debt to a third-party (the printer). After a 3-judge rehearing and then a very special appeal to the full 12-judge 11th Circuit during February 2022, on September 8, the court released its long-awaited decision. The Sessions Firm represented several clients in the appeal.

On July 1, 2021, medical collection activity stopped in Nevada because S.B. 248 became effective.  

Since the 7th Circuit released their 2014 McMahon decision, using the word “settle” or “settlement” in any settlement offer letter has exposed collection agencies to being sued. Finding an FDCPA violation, the McMahon Court ruled that the consumer could reasonably assume that “settle” was a legal term and consumers would fear being sued for the debt.