Suing Debt Collectors and Proving Harm
Strength of Federal Consumer Protection Actions
In recent years, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) have been working to shut down debt collectors that violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). For instance, the FDCPA makes clear that debt collectors are not permitted to call at any time of the day, and they are not allowed to call you at work if you tell them you cannot receive phone calls there. In addition, collection companies cannot make statements that mislead you or give you false information about debts that you might (or might now) owe.
In many cases, the government agencies have been successful when it comes to holding debt collectors accountable for unfair debt collection practices, as a recent article in the Los Angeles Times explained. Indeed, that article made clear that the CFPB, developed by the Obama administration, has helped to create a “consumer protection legacy defined by aggressive agency.” But what happens when an individual consumer wants to file a lawsuit against a debt collection company? What kind of evidence does that individual consumer need in order to win a lawsuit? A recent U.S. Supreme Court case, Spokeo v. Robins, makes clear that consumers must be able to prove an injury that is “both concrete and particularized.” But what does this mean in practice?
Evidence for a Successful Consumer Claim Under Spokeo v. Robins
While the U.S. Supreme Court recently released its opinion in Spokeo v. Robins, the Court’s language does not make absolutely clear what a consumer injury that is “both concrete and particularized” might look like. In short, the case involved a plaintiff who alleged that an online company had posted inaccurate information about him, and he filed a claim in which he cited the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), contending that he needed to show only that inaccurate information had been posted about him in order to have a successful claim.
However, according to the Court, a consumer’s ability to show only that a business has posted inaccurate information does not give a consumer standing. While, according to Justice Alito (who wrote the opinion), a posting of inaccurate information might be a violation of the FCRA, it might simply be a procedural violation. And a procedural violation alone is not enough. Rather, the consumer must be able to show that he or she has suffered a concrete harm.
An article in The Washington Post report on the Court’s decision, and it cited an example given by Alito in order to show why a concrete harm is important. In this hypothetical, imagine that inaccurate information has been posted about a consumer, but that inaccurate information is the consumer’s zip code. As Alito explained, “it is difficult to imagine how the dissemination of an incorrect zip code, without more, could work any concrete harm.”
While this case did not deal specifically with the FDCPA, the decision suggests that consumers, in order to have a successful claim, may need to prove concrete harm in order to win a case. At the same time, however, the article in The Washington Post emphasizes that “the court this term did not change the law much, despite the urging of business groups.”
If you have questions about filing a claim under the FDCPA, an experienced Oak Park consumer protection attorney can assist you. Contact the Emerson Law Firm today for more information.
See Related Blog Posts:
Comments
Post a Comment