FDCPA is being shut down by the injury in fact/standing issue

[HueyPilot]

Has anyone been following this issue. 

 

QUESTION PRESENTED Whether Congress may confer Article III standing upon a plaintiff who suffers no concrete harm, and who therefore could not otherwise invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court, by authorizing a private right of action based on a bare violation of a federal statute

 The Pennell decision is the latest in a line of cases in which the Seventh Circuit has taken an active role in scrutinizing FDCPA standing questions under the Supreme Court’s Spokeo standard. See, e.g., Casillas v. Madison Ave. Assocs., Inc., 926 F.3d 329, 331 (7th Cir. 2019); Larkin v. Fin. Sys. of Green Bay, Inc., 982 F.3d 1060, 1063 (7th Cir. 2020).

 

The plaintiff in Spokeo sued under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, alleging that Spokeo’s website contained false information about him. Spokeo is a self-described “people search engine” that organizes White Pages listings, public records, and social network information. Spokeo argued that the plaintiff lacked standing to sue because he did not suffer “actual harm” from the company’s conduct; his only claim of harm was that his statutory rights were violated. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, and held that where a statutory cause of action does not require proof of damages, a plaintiff can suffer a violation of the statutory right without suffering actual damages.

 

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/consumer/practice/2021/fdcpa-litigators-new-lessons-on-standing/

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/13-1339-Spokeo-v-Robins-Cert-Petition-for-filing.pdf

[BV80]

The FDCPA is not being shut down.  I think some courts have simply gotten tired of serial litigants who have taken advantage of the FDCPA in order to make a living by filing baseless lawsuits claiming nonexistent injuries.  We’ve had a few of those litigants on this website.  One, in particular, bragged about “setting up” or “baiting” debt collectors.   He was not injured in any way.    

Spokeo involved the FCRA.  That act (15 U.S.C. 1681) is clear about statutory violations.  1681(n) states that statutory damages require proof of a willful violation.  The violation must be intentional.  

1681(o) states that if one can only prove negligence, he must have proof of actual damages. 

In Spokeo, the court merely reemphasized the purpose of laws and courts.  That purpose is redress for those who have suffered real, concrete harm.   The FCRA and FDCPA were not enacted to provide a living for the likes of those who find ways to game the system or for those who don’t understand the difference between real harm and hurt feelings.  Courts are full of those people who file frivolous claims based upon fake, nonexistent, or imaginary harm.  Some of those people are flat out liars while others simply believe every negative issue in their lives should be taken to court and the court will hand them a check.  They take up the time of courts while people with real issues who have suffered actual harm have to wait for their turn to be heard after the shysters and uninformed.

There was a more recent decision issued by the SCOTUS.  It is Transunion, LLC v. Ramirez (2021).  It emphasizes Spokeo and “concrete harm”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[WhoCares1000]

The thing is, what happens when people start filing $1 suits just to hassle debt collectors and get out of a debt. Those suits are expensive to defendants and it is really easy to prove $1 in damages.

[BV80]

1 hour ago, WhoCares1000 said:

The thing is, what happens when people start filing $1 suits just to hassle debt collectors and get out of a debt. Those suits are expensive to defendants and it is really easy to prove $1 in damages.

I don’t think it would be difficult for a debt collector to show that a $1 lawsuit is not only frivolous but has been filed for the very purpose you stated.  It was filed to hassle and harass.  A collection agency that wins a ruling in its favor in an FDCPA lawsuit can have its attorney fees reimbursed by the consumer when it also proves a lawsuit was filed for the purpose of harassment.

The FDCPA lawsuits are not as expensive for defendants as people believe.  Legal expenses are part of doing business and are, therefore, tax deductible.  

[HueyPilot]

My reference to the FDCPA being shut down was to all the time consuming pending litigation as a result of Spokeo causing long delays in it's functions for normal and regular case process. You have to love the 9th Circuit which seems to take a very liberal opposing view or exception to most everything. At one point their environmental positions shut down major West Coast raw materials industries for years causing world wide materials shortages and skyrocketing expenses and logistical challenges we are living with today. This standing issue is being carefully reviewed and heavily debated. It's an interesting watch.

[BV80]

12 minutes ago, HueyPilot said:

My reference to the FDCPA being shut down was to all the time consuming pending litigation as a result of Spokeo causing long delays in it's functions for normal and regular case process. You have to love the 9th Circuit which seems to take a very liberal opposing view or exception to most everything. At one point their environmental positions shut down major West Coast raw materials industries for years causing world wide materials shortages and skyrocketing expenses and logistical challenges we are living with today. This standing issue is being carefully reviewed and heavily debated. It's an interesting watch.

I agree that it’s interesting.  I wish courts across the country could agree on something.  ?

[HueyPilot]

 

 

3.1.A. Overview

The law of standing has its roots in Article III’s case and controversy requirement.1 The U.S. Supreme Court has established a three-part test for standing. The “irreducible constitutional minimum of standing” requires the plaintiff to establish:

First ... an “injury in fact”—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) “actual or imminent,” not “conjectural” or “hypothetical.” Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—the injury has to be “fairly ... trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not ... th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court.” Third, it must be “likely,” as opposed to merely “speculative,” that the injury will be “redressed by a favorable decision.”2