Yes. In the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, BC Services, Inc. (“BC Services”), a debt collector, was sued for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. (“FDCPA”). The FDCPA is a federal statute that protects consumers from unlawful debt collection actions. The docket number for this case is Case No. 3:20-cv-00863-slc.

The plaintiff in this case allegedly incurred a debt that went into default and was then transferred to BC Services, the defendant, for collection purposes. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant reported his debt to a credit reporting agency. The plaintiff alleged that he retained an attorney whom he used to dispute the debt and that he requested to cease communications with the defendant. Afterwards, the plaintiff alleged that he reviewed a copy of his credit report and saw that his debt, with no indication of the dispute, was still being reported. The plaintiff alleged that because the defendant failed to update his credit report, they acted in violation of the FDCPA because this action would cause the least sophisticated consumer to believe that they did not have their rights under the FDCPA.

BC Services was also sued in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois for alleged violations of the FDCPA, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and a Bankruptcy Discharge Injunction. The docket number for this case is Case No. 3:18-cv-01051-MJR-DGW.

In this case, the plaintiff alleged that she filed a Chapter 7 petition in which she listed BC Services as a creditor. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant did not send a representative to attend the plaintiff’s meeting of creditors. The plaintiff then alleged that she was granted an Order of Discharge for all the debts stated in her petition, including the alleged debt owed to BC Services and that BC Services was made aware of the discharge. Afterwards, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant attempted to collect her debt even though it knew about her bankruptcy case and its ruling. The plaintiff alleged that she received a dunning letter from the defendant that contained the total balance of the alleged debt, a detachable payment coupon, as well as a request for her to call their office if she wanted to enter into a payment plan. The plaintiff alleged that this letter was sent to her home and that she received another dunning letter a few days later.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant acted unlawfully by attempting to collect a debt with knowledge of its discharge. The plaintiff alleged that BC Services violated the FDCPA by communicating with her even though they knew that she was represented by counsel, by misrepresenting the debt, and by using unfair collection means, among other actions.

Another federal lawsuit was filed against BC Services and its debt collectors in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The defendants were sued for allegedly violating the FDCPA and the Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The docket number for this case is Case No. 1:10-cv-01819-LTB-MEH.

In this case, the plaintiff allegedly incurred a debt that was assigned to the defendant for collection. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants communicated with her in order to collect the debt and that she sent them a cease and desist letter in which she asked for validation of the debt. The plaintiff alleged that in her letter, she stated that she did not give permission for the defendants to call her at home or at her work and that she asked for all communications to be in written form. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants received her letter and sent her medical recordings. Afterwards, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants ignored her requests by calling her at home and leaving a recorded message. She also alleged that the defendants did not identify themselves in the message. The plaintiff then alleged that she received two letters from the defendants which contained differing amounts for the debt, neither of which was the true amount from the creditor.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants’ following actions, among others, were in violation of the FDCPA: failure to disclose their identities as debt collectors, misrepresentation of the debt, and attempt to collect an amount that was not authorized by the original debt agreement.

BC Services was also sued in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado for alleged violations of the FDCPA. The docket number for this case is Case No.  1:14-cv-02587-REB-CBS.

The plaintiff allegedly owed a debt to a creditor that was transferred to BC Services for collection. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant sent him a collection letter which was the first communication that he received from the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that this letter did not tell him that he had the right to dispute the debt within 30 days. The plaintiff also alleged that the letter was signed by the defendant’s lawyer and that they threatened to take legal action against the plaintiff if he failed to pay the debt. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s threat of legal action was false because they did not initiate any action.

The plaintiff alleged that the actions of the defendant violated the FDCPA because they acted in a way that was meant to harass the consumer, they failed to inform the plaintiff of the right to dispute the debt, they threatened legal action that they did not intend to take, and they used unfair means to collect the debt, among other actions.

What constitutes a violation of a consumer’s rights during the debt collection process?

The FDCPA is a federal statute that was enacted to promote fair debt collection, to eliminate unlawful collection practices, and to provide legal protection to consumers against debt collectors. The FDCPA covers consumer debts like credit card debt, student loans, auto loans, and mortgages.

The FDCPA prohibits certain behaviors during the debt collection process. For example, when collecting a debt from a consumer, a debt collector cannot use abusive language, threaten to take action that cannot be taken, or act unconscionably, amongst other things. Additionally, debt collectors are restricted by the hours during which they can call a consumer — they can only communicate with consumers between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m — and they must cease their calls to a consumer if the individual asks them to stop calling. Furthermore, in most states, and unless a debt collector is a debt collection law firm, a debt collector cannot threaten to sue a consumer; as they do not have the present right to do so. In these cases, the right to sue remains with the original or current creditor.

If a debt collector has violated a consumer’s rights under the FDCPA, the consumer can sue them for damages. The consumer could be entitled to statutory damages of up to $1,000, as well as actual damages including, but not limited to harm or loss that resulted from a debt collector’s actions.