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

Popular posts from this blog

Phantom Debt Collection Scams on the Rise in Illinois

Have you been contacted by a person claiming to be a debt collector who is seeking to recover a debt you allegedly owe? If so, you are not alone. According to a recent report from CBS Chicago , such parties claiming to be debt collectors are on the rise, and they are scamming Chicago-area residents. These alleged debt collectors are part of schemes known as “phantom debt collection scams,” since they involve the attempt to collect on a debt that the consumer does not actually owe. How can you avoid becoming a victim in a debt-collection scam ? What should you do if you have been targeted by a fake debt collector? How Do Phantom Debt Collection Scams Work? Now, you might be thinking to yourself: I would never agree to make payment on a debt that I did not owe. But the scam is not always that simple. Parties at the center of debt-collection scams often target consumers who do actually owe debts (to someone or to some entity), and they prey on the fact that these c...
Read more

Payday Lending and Predatory Lenders in Illinois

If you are in substantial debt in the Chicago area and are living in a paycheck-to-paycheck cycle, you may have taken out a payday loan to make ends meet. While payday lending is illegal in a number of states due to the predatory nature of these loans, it remains legal in Illinois. As a result, many debtors in the state have used payday lenders, and far too many of those borrowers cannot repay what they owe. According to a recent article from Progress Illinois , consumers have filed complaints about payday lenders in the state, illuminating a need for federal rules that address harmful lending practices . Predatory Payday Lenders and Protections for Consumers Due to the perceived predatory nature of payday loans, twelve states in the country have banned these lenders from operating completely, according to a fact sheet from loans.org . The states that currently have laws prohibiting payday lenders from operating include Arkansas, Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, Mary...
Read more

New Information on Debts That Bankruptcy Cannot Discharge

If you are thinking about filing for bankruptcy in the Oak Park area, it is important to know that certain kinds of debts cannot be discharged in a bankruptcy case. Under U.S. bankruptcy law, these are known as non-dischargeable debts, or exceptions to discharge. There are certain types of debts that have long been identified clearly as non-dischargeable debts, while there are misconceptions about other types of debts that may or may not be dischargeable. As an article in CNBC discusses, the U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a ruling in the case of Bartenwerfer v. Buckley , which clarifies that debts incurred due to another party’s fraud cannot be discharged in an individual’s bankruptcy case. Our Oak Park bankruptcy attorneys can explain the Court’s recent ruling and provide you with additional information on dischargeable and non-dischargeable debts. Supreme Court Says Debt Incurred Due to Another’s Fraud is Non-Dischargeable The recent Bartenwerfer case involved a debtor attempti...
Read more