b'Seventh Circuit Issues Key Decision Applying Spokeoadministration, on July 30, 2021 the CFPB withdrew to FDCPA Allegations that proposal and announced that the rules would take In May, the Seventh Circuit reaffirmed a slew ofeffect on November 30, 2021, as originally planned. cases holding that a bare statutory violation of theThe CFPB then updated its FAQ and issued additional FDCPA is not necessarily sufficient, in and of itself, toguidance related to the two new rules. The updates to satisfy Article III standing requirements. In Markakosthe FAQ answered questions related to limited-content v. Medicredi, Inc., 997 F.3d 778, 781 (7th Cir. 2021),message requirements, call frequency limitations, and the plaintiff had received letters from a debt collectorvalidation information, including an additional section listing different amounts that the borrower owed. Thedevoted to answering questions related to validation plaintiff alleged that the inconsistent amounts reflectedinformation for residential mortgages. In also issuing on the letters constituted a violation of the FDCPAadditional validation information guidance, the CFPB because she was entitled to correct information aboutsaid that it was attempting to help debt collectors the amount of the debt she owed and that the letterscomply with the disclosure requirements by providing confused and aggravated her. The Seventh Circuit,instructions on how to use the new model validation however, held that the plaintiff had failed to allege thatnotice, which provides a safe harbor for compliance the misinformation had injured her in a concrete waywith the rules content and format requirements. because she did not allege that she paid more moneyOne aspect of the new rules that has garnered to the debt collector than she owed, that her creditsignificant attention is that, under the new rules, a debt suffered, or that she took some other action to hercollector can contact a consumer on social media, detriment in reliance on the misinformation.provided that the message is private, the debt collect Markakos is noteworthy because two of the judgesidentifies themselves, and the debt collect includes on the panel issued concurring opinions that, thougha way for the consumer to opt out of receiving social agreeing with the result, questioned the Seventhmedia messages.Circuits recent approach to evaluating standing under Spokeo. Judge Ripple in his concurrence stated thatCalifornias DFPI Prioritizes Debt Collection he was concerned that recent cases in the SeventhEnforcement and RegulationCircuit overread Spokeo and take too restrictive a viewIn its first full year of operations, the new California DFPI of Congresss authority to identify intangible injuriesissued several new rules and brought multiple debt and to allocate enforcement burdens. Id. at 782. In hercollection and debt settlement enforcement actions. concurrence, Judge Rovner largely agreed with JudgeIn April and August, the DFPI promulgated notices of Ripple, stating that the approaches taken in somerulemaking related to implementing the new California other circuits are consistent with Article III case-or- Debt Collection Licensing Acts licensing requirements. controversy jurisprudence, while being more properlyOn September 1, 2021, the DFPI announced that had deferential to the Congressional judgment inherentbegun accepting applications for licensing from debt in the determination of harms and remedies in thecollectors. Under the Act, to continue operating in FDCPA. Id. at 786-787 ([O]ther circuits have held thatCalifornia, debt collectors currently engaged in the an allegation of a statutory violation can itself establishbusiness of debt collection in the state have until standing, where the violation implicates the concreteJanuary 1, 2022 to be licensed. interest of the statute.).Hunstein, Markakos, and the Supreme Courts recentIn September, the DFPI brought its first enforcement decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez illustrate that theaction against a debt collector under the California contours of Article III standing, particularly in the debtConsumer Financial Protection Law (CCFPL). The CCFPL collection and settlement realm, remain unsettled. makes it unlawful for a covered person to engage in any unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice with respect CFPBs Final Rules Modernizing the FDCPA Take Effect to consumer financial services or products or to offer or Last year Goodwin reported on the CFPBs issuanceprovide a consumer financial product or service not in of two final rules under Regulation F implementingconformity with any consumer financial law. The DFPI the FDCPA, which include limited-content messageissued a cease-and-desist order to F & F Management requirements, call frequency limitations, and clearerInc. under the CCFPL for allegedly unlawfully threatening requirements on the disclosure of debt information toto sue consumers and garnish their wages, and submitting consumers to help them identify the debt being collectednegative information to a credit bureau without notifying (these disclosures are called validation information).consumer (i.e., debt parking). The DFPI found that these actions violated the CCFPL and ordered the company to Citing the pandemic, in early April 2020 the CFPBpay an administrative penalty of $375,000.proposed delaying the rules effective dates until January 29, 2022. But, following the change in 34'