ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS
CHAPTER 44
CONSUMER LAW
44-1A. Debt collection
Yes. The court held that the letter violated the FDCPA because of the “visual effect” of the
warning—printed in enlarged, boldfaced type—the debt must be paid within ten days. This
44-2A. Equal credit opportunity
The court held that the home improvement contract did not constitute a credit transaction and
therefore was not subject to the antidiscrimination provisions of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act
(ECOA). Under the ECOA, “credit” is defined as “the right granted by a creditor to a debtor to
44-3A. Deceptive advertising
The administrative law judge (ALJ) ruled that Kraft was misleading consumers because,
although Kraft did use five ounces of milk in making each Kraft Single, roughly 30 percent of the
calcium contained in the milk was lost during processing—and Kraft had neglected to inform
consumers of this fact. Furthermore, the ALJ found that the vast majority of imitation cheese
slices sold in the United States contained approximately the same amount of calcium as Kraft
B-2 APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 44
44-4A. Fair debt collection
The court held that the assessment did not qualify as a “debt” within the meaning of the FDCPA.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed this judgment, however, and remanded
the case. The appellate court set out the FDCPA definition of a debt: “any obligation or alleged
44-5A. Fair debt collection
The court granted Credit Bureau’s motion, and the Mahons appealed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the judgment of the lower court. The appellate
44-6A. Equal credit opportunity
The borrowers argued in part that Riggs violated the ECOA when it required Marcia’s signature
on the personal guaranty. They claimed that this violated the ECOA’s prohibition on
44-7A. Debt collection
The district court found no violation of the FDCPA. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit reversed the decision of the lower court and remanded the case. The appellate court
concluded in part that the notice “contained a contradictory message. * * * [T]he back of the
44-8A. Fair debt collection
CrossCheck argued that it was not a “debt collector” within the meaning of the FDCPA. If the
court had accepted this argument, it might have ruled in CrossCheck’s favor. The court
concluded, however, that “[t]here are disputes of material fact concerning CrossCheck’s status
B-4 APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 44
44-9A. Deceptive advertising
Deceptive advertising occurs if a reasonable consumer would be misled by a claim. In this case,
the court issued a preliminary injunction, concluding in part that “end70 Corporation and its
president and owner * * * Damien Zamora have engaged in [deceptive] acts and practices that
44–10A. Debt collection
The court issued a summary judgment in favor of Goldman. Cohen appealed to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which affirmed the lower court’s judgment, “concluding that