Holmes v. Contract Callers, Inc., 3:17-cv-00148

Holmes sued Contract Callers under the FDCPA alleging the defendant reported a consumer debt on his credit report in November 2016 without marking it as “disputed by consumer.”
Holmes sent a dispute letter on September 15, 2016; he later reviewed his credit report and alleges the dispute was not indicated when the account was re-reported.
The Complaint alleges only that Holmes “has been damaged” and seeks FDCPA damages but does not specify any concrete harm or losses in the pleading.
Contract Callers pleaded lack of standing as an affirmative defense and the Court sua sponte ordered briefing on subject‑matter jurisdiction.
Holmes’ response brief asserted credit-score impact and other credit-related injuries, but those factual assertions were not pleaded in the Complaint and thus could not be considered for the Article III standing analysis.
The Court dismissed the Complaint without prejudice for lack of Article III standing because the Complaint failed to allege a concrete, particularized injury or a substantial risk of imminent harm, and identified no common-law analogue or harm that Congress intended to prevent by the FDCPA violation alleged.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Article III standing to sue for FDCPA reporting omission	Holmes: failure to mark account as disputed presents concrete injury (credit-score impact, risk of denial, higher costs)	Contract Callers: Holmes alleged no concrete injury; thus no standing	Dismissed — Complaint fails to plead concrete, particularized injury or substantial risk of real harm
Whether a statutory procedural violation alone confers concreteness	Holmes: statutory violation of FDCPA is enough to confer standing	Contract Callers: statutory violation alone, without concrete harm, is insufficient	Held — statutory violation alone does not confer standing absent concrete harm or a recognized common‑law analogue
Whether speculative future risk (identity theft/credit harm) suffices	Holmes: omission creates a real risk of future credit harm	Contract Callers: risk is speculative and unsupported by pleaded facts	Held — speculative risk without pleading facts showing substantial likelihood is insufficient
Whether Congress by FDCPA created an informational/common‑law injury	Holmes: implied that FDCPA protects against such reporting omissions	Contract Callers: no common‑law analogue and Holmes did not plead the type of harm Congress sought to prevent	Held — no common‑law analogue pleaded and no showing the alleged omission inflicted the type of harm FDCPA targets

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires injury‑in‑fact, causation, redressability)
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (statutory violations require a concrete and particularized injury to confer Article III standing)
Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (particularized injury requirement for standing)
Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (jurisdictional defects may be raised at any time)
Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (case‑or‑controversy and standing principles)
Beck v. McDonald, 848 F.3d 262 (4th Cir.) (speculative risk of future harm insufficient for standing)
Dreher v. Experian Information Solutions, 856 F.3d 337 (4th Cir.) (informational/FCRA injury must be the type Congress sought to prevent)