Tenth Circuit Backs Auto Lender in TILA, FDCPA and TCPA Dispute

Case Snapshot

• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Case: Richard Thomas Thigpen v. Westlake Services, LLC, No. 25-2081
• Decision Date: Aug. 5, 2026
• Core Issue: Whether Westlake was entitled to summary judgment on federal lending, debt collection, and telephone communication claims arising from an auto installment contract.
• Key Allegation: Richard Thomas Thigpen alleged Westlake failed to make required credit disclosures and engaged in improper conduct while collecting amounts owed under his vehicle financing agreement.
• Court Holding: The Tenth Circuit found the TILA claim time-barred and unsupported on the merits, Westlake was not an FDCPA debt collector, and Thigpen had expressly consented to the automated and prerecorded communications underlying his TCPA claim.
• Outcome: Summary judgment for Westlake affirmed.
• Notable Detail: The contract specifically authorized calls and text messages using prerecorded or artificial voices and automatic dialing technology at telephone numbers provided in connection with the account.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has affirmed summary judgment for Westlake Services LLC in a consumer auto finance dispute, rejecting claims under the Truth in Lending Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Telephone Consumer Protection Act, along with several state-law claims.

The Aug. 5 decision in Thigpen v. Westlake Services, LLC provides several practical takeaways for creditors and receivables management companies. The court found the consumer’s TILA claim was filed too late and failed on the merits, concluded Westlake was a creditor rather than an FDCPA debt collector, and held that explicit contractual language constituted express consent to automated and prerecorded calls.

The Tenth Circuit’s order and judgment is not precedential except under doctrines including law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel, although the court said it may be cited for its persuasive value.

TILA Claim Fails on Timing and Disclosures

Thigpen purchased a truck through an installment contract that the seller assigned to Westlake. After he stopped making payments, he sued Westlake, alleging nondisclosure and misconduct associated with the collection of the obligation.

The Tenth Circuit agreed with the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico that Thigpen’s TILA disclosure claim failed for two separate reasons.

First, the claim was untimely. TILA generally provides a one-year limitations period for the type of claim at issue. Thigpen conceded that his claim accrued when he purchased the truck but waited two years before filing suit.

The appellate court rejected his attempt to use equitable tolling because he did not explain why he could not have compared the disclosures contained in the contract with TILA’s statutory requirements. It similarly rejected his argument that subsequent billing statements created continuing violations. The court reasoned that TILA requires the relevant disclosures before credit is extended, and the later billing statements did not constitute new extensions of credit.

The claim also failed on its merits.

The first page of the installment agreement contained a boxed section labeled ‘Truth-in-Lending Disclosure.’ The Tenth Circuit noted that the box disclosed the annual percentage rate, amount financed, and finance charge, and found Thigpen had not shown that the disclosures lacked the clarity or conspicuousness required by TILA.

The court also rejected arguments concerning insurance-related finance charges and itemization. Thigpen did not provide evidence that Westlake offered the insurance at issue, and the court found the contract itself provided the itemization he claimed was missing.

Westlake Was Not an FDCPA Debt Collector

The FDCPA portion of the decision could be particularly relevant to creditors and debt purchasers assessing their status under the federal statute.

The Tenth Circuit found Westlake did not qualify as a “debt collector” for two independent reasons.

Westlake was collecting its own debt rather than attempting to collect an obligation owed to another entity. The company also obtained the installment contract immediately after Thigpen purchased the truck, before the account was in default. Both circumstances placed Westlake outside the debt collector status asserted by Thigpen.

Thigpen pointed to calls allegedly made by two other companies, NowPay and High Desert Repossession. The court said those companies might potentially incur their own FDCPA liability if they qualified as debt collectors and violated the statute, but Thigpen failed to establish why their conduct would make Westlake liable.

For ARM companies, the decision reinforces the importance of determining who acquired an obligation, when it was acquired, and on whose behalf collection activity is being conducted when evaluating FDCPA coverage.

Contract Language Defeats TCPA Claim

The TCPA claim turned largely on the language of the underlying contract.

Thigpen alleged Westlake violated the TCPA by making calls using automatic dialing technology or prerecorded voices. The statute, however, contains an exception applicable to calls made with the recipient’s prior express consent.

According to the opinion, Thigpen’s contract stated that Westlake could “make calls and send text messages” using prerecorded or artificial voice messages or an automatic dialing device at telephone numbers he provided in connection with the account.

The Tenth Circuit found that language unambiguous.

The court compared the provision to similar consent language addressed by the Eleventh Circuit in Lucoff v. Navient Solutions, LLC, where authorization to communicate using automated dialing equipment and artificial or prerecorded voice messages was also found to constitute unambiguous consent.

Thigpen separately argued that third parties such as NowPay placed some of the calls. The Tenth Circuit acknowledged that courts have recognized circumstances in which a creditor can face vicarious TCPA liability for an agent’s conduct. However, it concluded that Thigpen did not sufficiently develop an agency theory supporting such liability.

Arguments that calls went to numbers other than the one he provided and that he had revoked his consent were deemed waived because they were raised for the first time in his appellate reply brief.

The ruling underscores a practical point for creditors using telephone communications: precise contractual consent provisions can become important evidence when communications are later challenged. Businesses still need to evaluate consent, revocation, applicable FCC requirements, call type, and other TCPA obligations based on the particular facts involved.

State-Law Claims Also Rejected

The Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on Thigpen’s breach-of-contract, unjust enrichment, and New Mexico Unfair Practices Act claims.

For the contract claim, the court found the agreement required Thigpen to insure the truck, treated failure to perform contractual obligations as a default, and authorized Westlake to take possession following a default.

The unjust enrichment claim failed because a valid contract governed the parties’ relationship and addressed the disputed obligations.

Thigpen also relied on evidence of a previous Consumer Financial Protection Bureau enforcement action against Westlake to support his New Mexico Unfair Practices Act claim. The Tenth Circuit found the earlier matter, which concerned conduct involving other borrowers more than six years before Thigpen purchased his truck, did not establish that Westlake misled Thigpen.

The CFPB’s 2015 action was significant in its own right. The agency found that Westlake and Wilshire Consumer Credit used illegal collection tactics, including deceptive caller ID practices, false threats and improper disclosures to third parties. The resulting order required $44.1 million in consumer relief and a $4.25 million civil penalty.

The Tenth Circuit’s decision illustrates the evidentiary distinction between prior regulatory misconduct and proof supporting an individual consumer’s later claims. Evidence that a company previously faced enforcement does not, standing alone, establish that the same or similar conduct occurred in a separate transaction.

What the Ruling Means for Receivables Management

Three aspects of the decision stand out for creditors, servicers, and collection professionals.

First, TILA disclosure disputes remain closely tied to both the timing of the credit transaction and the actual documents provided to the consumer. Later account activity does not necessarily restart the limitations period for alleged origination-stage disclosure violations.

Second, FDCPA status depends on the statutory definition of a debt collector and the circumstances surrounding acquisition and collection of the obligation. The Tenth Circuit specifically relied on Westlake collecting its own debt and acquiring the installment contract before default.

Third, detailed consent language can have significant consequences in TCPA litigation. Here, the contract specifically identified calls, texts, prerecorded or artificial voices, and automatic dialing technology. That specificity allowed the court to find express consent rather than infer it from the broader creditor-borrower relationship.

Because the Tenth Circuit designated its order and judgment as nonprecedential, the ruling does not establish binding circuit law outside the limited doctrines identified by the court. It nevertheless provides a useful example of how federal courts may analyze disclosure timing, creditor status, and contractual consent when multiple consumer financial protection statutes are asserted in a single collection dispute.