6 ms·
There was a case a few year back around the time of the 2008 recession where a man in debt used the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to earn a decent living f
by DoubleGlazing 3y ago
There was a case a few year back around the time of the 2008 recession where a man in debt used the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to earn a decent living from their aggressive/dishonest practices. I did try Googling for the story, but I could find it.
His process was to let them lie to him - he even encouraged it, all while he was recording the call. After the call ended he'd launch a legal claim for compensation and he'd always win.
For example if they implied he could be jailed for not paying him debt, he ask them to confirm what they must said and use that as evidence of a violation of the FDCPA.
His logic was that in the good days credit companies were begging him to take on debt, but when the economy crashed and he found himself out of work they weren't so understanding about his circumstances.
- sidewndr46 3y agoI would love to hear this case if you have time to track it down
- hiatus 3y agoSeems like that might not be possible these days. > On June 25, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a plaintiff must suffer a concrete injury resulting from a defendant’s statutory violation to have Article III standing to pursue damages from that defendant in federal court. The Court also held that plaintiffs in a class action must prove that every class member has standing for each claim asserted and for each form of relief sought. https://consumerfsblog.com/2021/06/supreme-court-substantially-restricts-ability-to-sue-in-federal-court-for-fcra-fdcpa-tcpa-and-other-statutory-violations-same-class-actions-now-difficult-to-certify/ https://consumerfsblog.com/2021/06/supreme-court-substantial...
- mrguyorama 3y agoAnd then two years later they take and rule on a case that was completely fabricated. Awesome. Glad to know it's rules for thee and not for me
- lostlogin 3y agoIsn’t the saying usually ‘rules for me and not for thee’?
- 303uru 3y agoMeanwhile, a "website designer" who's never deployed a website, was never hired to create one and who suffered zero injury gets a ruling. This SCOTUS is invalid.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- bequanna 3y agoBoth political parties have endeavored to pack the courts with sympathetic judges. The conservatives got the Supreme Court majority by pure luck. The Democrats would have done the exact same if given the opportunity and then you’d have the Right crying about how the court is “invalid”. To change this, we should require some kind of supermajority to confirm judicial appointments at all levels.
- flangola7 3y ago[flagged]
- unbalancedevh 3y agoThat wasn't "bothsidesing" the issue. Whatever your current political opinion, the potential is still there for abuse by either party, and there's room for improvement in the process. The point still stands.
- cbozeman 3y agoExpand.
- drekipus 3y agoNot to your definition of morals. Surely you can see that, right?
- FractalHQ 3y agoIf your morals are immoral, sure.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> that might not be possible these days You’re most likely making these claims in state courts. Federal cases start at $25k.
- jkaplowitz 3y ago$75k if you mean the usual amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction, no? Anyway, the FDCPA specifically gives federal courts jurisdiction over FDCPA violations “regardless of the amount in controversy”, so there’s no minimum. Still, the FDCPA jurisdiction provision is non-exclusive, meaning state courts also remain a viable option.
- hiatus 3y agoYeah this does not impact cases brought before state courts: > Article III, § 2 of the U.S. Constitution limits federal court jurisdiction to cases and controversies. But the Supreme Court has held “the constraints of Article III do not apply to state courts, and accordingly the state courts are not bound by the limitations of a case or controversy or other federal rules of justiciability even when they address issues of federal law, as when they are called upon to interpret the Constitution or, in this case, a federal statute.” ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605, 617 (1989). https://library.nclc.org/article/bringing-federal-consumer-claims-state-court-50-state-analysis-standing-rules#content-0 https://library.nclc.org/article/bringing-federal-consumer-c...
- jkaplowitz 3y agoThat ruling only applies to federal courts. FDCPA claims can be, and sometimes are, filed in state courts, which are allowed to be more permissive about standing rules (to the extent permitted by state constitutions and laws) than federal courts.
- LorenPechtel 3y agoYeah, I wish we had one-party recording rules. I had a bunch of idiotic debt collectors after me in dealing with my mother's estate. (*None* of them listened to the simple instruction that it's an estate issue, file with such-and-such court. The clock ran out, they all ended up with $0.) Rare was it a call that didn't violate the FDCPA. Unfortunately, I live in a state that's all-party with regards to phone calls even though we're one-party in person.