64
e United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has recently
released a veritable avalanche of debt collector-friendly opinions regarding
"standing" under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), which given
the relative dearth of lender-slanted opinions in this legal niche, seems practically
momentous. As of the time of writing, no less than six opinions on this narrow
topic were issued over little more than a week in mid-December of 2020, leaving
the distinct impression that the Court is sending a message.
Standing is a party's right to sue. It only
exists if a party has suffered a harm, as courts
aren't supposed to ponder the mere theoretical.
In other words, a party that hasn't suffered
an injury won't typically be permitted to
proceed with suit. In legal terms, the need
to allege harm is typically referred to as the
"injury in fact" requirement, although how it
applies to the FDCPA has been the subject of
considerable debate. Namely, the quandary has
centered around whether a statutory violation
alone is sufficient or whether some resulting
actual harm must also have occurred.
SETTING PRECEDENCE
e FDCPA is a federal statute dictating
debt collection practices, one of which is
the requirement that debt collectors send
consumers written notices which clearly
disclose the amount of debt owed. Each of the
Seventh Circuit's six cases dealt with various
consumer attacks upon these requisite notices,
whether for statements alleged to have been
improperly made, or for statements alleged
NO FDCPA
HARM, NO
FDCPA FOUL
Through a series of opinions, the 7th Cir. U.S. Court of Appeals is sending a
message regarding when a lawsuit can be brought for debt collector violations.
Feature By: Lauren Riddick
