Rose Markakos v. Medicredit, Inc.
997 F.3d 778
| 7th Cir. | 2021Background
- In 2019 Medicredit sent Rose Markakos a medical debt collection letter stating $1,830.56; after Markakos’s counsel disputed the debt, Medicredit replied listing $407.00 and identified the creditor as “Northwest Community 2NDS.”
- Markakos sued under the FDCPA, alleging inconsistent/incorrect debt amounts and an unclear creditor name in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(1)–(2).
- The district court dismissed for lack of Article III standing and failure to state a claim; the Seventh Circuit panel affirmed the dismissal without prejudice.
- The panel held Markakos lacked an injury in fact because she did not allege any concrete harm or appreciable risk of harm: she disputed the debt and did not pay any overstated amount.
- The opinion relies on Seventh Circuit precedent (e.g., Casillas, Larkin, Nettles) and Supreme Court guidance (Spokeo, Thole) that a bare statutory violation does not automatically satisfy Article III; a concrete injury or appreciable risk is required.
- Judges Ripple and Rovner concurred in the judgment but warned the panel’s standing approach is too restrictive and undercuts Congress’s chosen enforcement scheme for the FDCPA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing (injury-in-fact) for FDCPA claim | Markakos: statutory right to accurate debt info was violated, producing informational injury and confusion | Medicredit: no concrete harm — Markakos disputed the debt and paid nothing, so no injury or altered conduct | No standing; statutory violation alone insufficient without harm or appreciable risk of harm |
| Whether misstated debt amount creates standing | Markakos: inconsistent/overstated amounts (and payment instructions) risk causing payment/reliance | Medicredit: plaintiff did not rely or pay; no change in behavior or economic loss | No — absent payment, reliance, credit effect, or risk shown, no injury-in-fact |
| Appropriate disposition when standing lacking | Markakos: case should proceed to merits | Medicredit: case should be dismissed | Affirmed dismissal without prejudice for lack of standing |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires concrete, particularized, actual or imminent injury)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (statutory violations require concrete injury; not all inaccuracies cause harm)
- Thole v. U.S. Bank N.A., 140 S. Ct. 1615 (no Article III standing where plaintiffs would suffer no change in benefits; courts should apply commonsense standing analysis)
- Casillas v. Madison Ave. Assocs., Inc., 926 F.3d 329 (Seventh Circuit: bare FDCPA procedural violations insufficient without harm)
- Larkin v. Fin. Sys. of Green Bay, Inc., 982 F.3d 1060 (Seventh Circuit: Spokeo analysis applies to substantive FDCPA claims; must allege harm or risk)
- Lavallee v. Med-1 Solutions, 932 F.3d 1049 (concrete injury where failure to provide dispute information led plaintiff not to dispute)
- Nettles v. Midland Funding LLC, 983 F.3d 896 (Seventh Circuit: overstated demand alone did not establish standing where plaintiff paid nothing)