Yes. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (“PRA”) is a known debt collector and they were sued in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California in the Sacramento Division. The lawsuit claimed that PRA allegedly violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), a federal statute that limits the actions of debt collectors, as well as the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“RFDCPA”). The docket number for this case is Case No. 2:09-cv-02744-JAM-CMK.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant placed continuous calls to her phone in order to collect payment for an alleged debt. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant did not inform her that the calls were coming from a debt collector and that the defendant would often hang up the calls. Additionally, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant never sent her a letter to validate the alleged debt. According to the plaintiff, the actions of the defendant allegedly violated the FDCPA because they engaged in harassing conduct, failed to identify themselves as a debt collector, failed to send a validation letter, and used unconscionable collection means, amongst other actions.

In another case, PRA was sued in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama for alleged violations of the FDCPA and RFDCPA. The docket number for this case is Case No. 1:14-cv-00166-WS-M.

In this case, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant was attempting to collect an alleged credit card debt. She alleged that the defendant filed a lawsuit against her in which they claimed that she owed a defaulted amount and demanded payment for the balance. The plaintiff alleged that she denied the allegations. Afterwards, the plaintiff alleged that she received legal aid from a volunteer lawyers program and was assigned an attorney for her case. She alleged that after her trial, her attorney informed her that the defendant dismissed the case against her with prejudice.

The plaintiff alleged that after the dismissal, the defendant made a call to her in order to collect the debt from the same lawsuit. The plaintiff alleged that after she reminded the defendant of the dismissal, the defendant still tried to collect the debt from her. She alleged that the defendant was aware that she owed no money and that she was also represented by legal counsel. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant violated the FDCPA by claiming they had the right to seek payment on a dismissed debt as this constituted a use of false or misleading representations. She also alleged that they also violated the FDCPA by contacting her directly after possessing knowledge that she was being represented by an attorney.

PRA was also sued for alleged violations of both the FDCPA and RFDCPA in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The docket number for this case is Case No. 2:15-cv-04202-PLA.

The plaintiff in this case alleged that the defendant attempted to collect an alleged debt related to a furniture store. He alleged that the defendant called him in order to collect on the alleged balance in which they claimed that the plaintiff missed an installment payment. The plaintiff alleged that in actuality he had already paid-off the debt five months prior to the collection call. The plaintiff alleged that despite disputing the debt, the defendant still reported the debt, causing it to show up on his credit report. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant used false or deceptive means to collect a debt and falsely represented the debt itself by attempting to collect on an already paid-off debt as well as communicated false personal credit information by reporting the alleged debt to credit reporting agencies. The plaintiff alleged that these actions were in violation of the FDCPA.

Another federal lawsuit was filed against PRA in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky in the Lexington Division for alleged violations of the FDCPA. The docket number for this case is Case No. 5:12-cv-00004-JMH.

In this case, the plaintiff allegedly received a collection letter from the defendant for an alleged debt owed to a bank. The plaintiff alleged that he disputed the debt and asked the defendant to validate the debt. Afterwards, he alleged that the defendant provided documentation which showed that another individual owed a credit card debt to the same bank. The plaintiff then alleged that the defendant did not provide paperwork to show that the plaintiff was responsible for the other individual’s debt. Additionally, the plaintiff alleged that the overdue balance indicated by the defendant’s documentation was much less than the amount they attempted to collect from him.

The plaintiff then alleged that a few days later, the defendant sent another collection letter to the plaintiff for the same alleged debt. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant also called his home phone many times, sometimes up to four times a day, in order to demand payment for the debt. The plaintiff alleged that he had asked the defendant to stop calling his phone but that despite this request, the defendant still called him continuously.

The plaintiff alleged that the actions of the defendant violated the FDCPA because they acted in a harassing or abusive way, used false and misleading representations, falsely represented the character of the debt, and used unfair and unconscionable collection means, among other actions.

Another federal lawsuit was filed against PRA for alleged violations of the FDCPA and RFDCPA in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California in the Fresno Division. The docket number for this case is Case No. 1:09-cv-01738-LJO-GSA.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant made a numerous amount of calls to his cellphone in order to collect on an alleged debt. He alleged that he sent a cease and desist letter to the defendant in order to request for the calls to be stopped. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant continued to call him even after it had received the cease and desist letter. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant did not provide validation for the debt and that it threatened to display the debt on his credit report. The plaintiff alleged that by repeatedly calling his phone in a harassing manner, calling after the plaintiff asked it to cease communication, and failing to provide validation, the defendant acted in a way that was in violation of the FDCPA.

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.