District Court (Fla.) Says Debt Collector’s Reporting to CRAs Did Not Trigger Potential FDCPA Exposure

In Koehler v. Waypoint Res. Grp., No. 8:18-cv-2071-T-60AAS, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191438 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 5, 2019), the District Court held that a debt collector’s reporting of a cable bill to the CRAs did not trigger the FDCPA.

All of Koehler’s FDCPA claims are based on Waypoint’s error in reporting the original creditor as “Charter Communications” rather than “Bright House” to the CRAs. However, several courts have concluded that “allegations that a creditor did not follow industry standards or otherwise erroneously reported information to a CRA [are] insufficient to state a claim under the FDCPA.” Dash v. Midland Funding LLC, Case No. 8:16-cv-2128-T-36AAS, 2017 WL 841116, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 3, 2017); see, e.g., Lee v.Sec. Check, LLC, Case No. 3:09-CV-421-J-12TEM, 2010 WL 3075673, at *8 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 5, 2010) [*4]  (“The [FDCPA] does not purport to impose civil liability for furnishing erroneous information to a credit reporting agency or for failing to correct erroneous information provided to a credit reporting agency.”); Acosta v. Campbell, Case No. 6:04-cv-761-Orl-28DAB, 2006 WL 146208, at *13 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 18, 2006) (“The FDCPA does not prohibit a debt collector from communicating to agencies, and a communication, in and of itself, to a consumer reporting agency, does not support a cause of action under the FDCPA.”). The Court finds the reasoning and analysis presented in these cases persuasive. As such, the Court concludes that Koehler’s allegations, as a matter of law, are insufficient to state a claim for relief under the FDCPA. Consequently, Koehler’s Motion for Summary Judgment is denied, and Waypoint’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.