I already wrote a longer response but think your sentiment also deserves a shorter one: The trade for the FCRA over state defamation suits is actually a net win

I already wrote a longer response but think your sentiment also deserves a shorter one: The trade for the FCRA over state defamation suits is actually a net win for consumers. To win a defamation suit, you have to prove (generally) a) you factually don't owe the debt and b) the CRA should have been aware that you factually don't own the debt. Those can be fairly difficult to demonstrate. (Quick, demonstrate that you don't owe $30,000 to Bank of America under account number #123456. Note you may be responding to a sworn deposition from a Bank of America representative which says "I have reviewed our firm's records, kept in the ordinary course of business, and they show that he does, indeed, owe us $30,000 on account #123456.") To win a FCRA suit, all you need is a return receipt from a letter you sent and then observe "No return receipt for the letter they sent in response dated within 30 days? Then presumption is they didn't send one. Unless they can immediately produce documentary evidence to the contrary, they're facially non-compliant, and I win automatically. We never reach the question of whether I actually owe the debt at issue. It's irrelevant."