b'Debt Collection + Settlement Actions by Year (with Recoveries)Number of Actions Amount of Recovery51$407.9M 46$264.4M30 35$250.6M 32$63.1M $45.1M14$129.5M2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021and low-income Delaware residents. The companythe collection of any debt. The panel reached this allegedly sent a Delaware notary to consumers homesconclusion after finding that the consumer had standing as a representative of the company. While at theto sue despite the absence of tangible harm. Though consumers homes, the notaries allegedly presentedthe panel vacated its prior decision following the consumers with the companys debt settlementSupreme Courts decision in TransUnion, the panel contract, which was styled as a Legal Servicesagain held, in Hunstein v. Preferred Collection and Agreement, and which referred to the company asManagement Services, Inc., 17 F.4th 1016 (11th Cir. 2021) a law firm, when the company was not a law firm(Hunstein II), that the debtor had standing, holding that and employed no Delaware attorneys. Delawarethe disclosure of a consumers information to a mailing alleges that this conduct violates the Uniform Debt- vendor was concrete albeit intangible. The panel also Management Services Act, the Consumer Fraud Act,doubled-down on its holding that providing information and the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. about a consumers debt to a third-party mailing vendor was a violation of Section 1692c(b) of the FDCPA.2021 Highlights Hunstein is one of the most significant FDCPA cases decided in the past several years because it opens the Eleventh Circuit Panel Issues Decision in Hunstein,door to liability under the FDCPA every time a third-Leading to Significant Increase in FDCPA Claims party vendor is used in connection with the collection The Eleventh Circuit in Hunstein v. Preferred Collectionof a debt. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Eleventh Circuit and Management Services, Inc., 994 F.3d 1341 (11th Cir.has agreed to rehear the case en banc. If the en banc 2021) (Hunstein I), held that providing debt information,court is inclined to vacate the panel opinion, it could such as debtors name and debt balance, to a third- do so on one of two grounds. It could hold that under party vendor retained to generate debt collectionTransUnion, the plaintiff lacks standing to sue because of letters was a communication to a third-party underthe absence of a concrete injury. Or, the court could hold Section 1692c(b) of the Fair Debt Collection Practicesthat Section 1692c(b) does not extend to vendors, like Act, which prohibits disclosing information about athe mailing vendor in Hunstein, who are acting on behalf consumers debt to a third party in connection withof the entity to whom the debt is owed.33'