Yes. Asset Recovery Associates (“ARA”) is a debt collector that was sued in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), a federal statute that protects consumers from unlawful debt collection practices. ARA’s employees were also sued in this case for the same alleged violations. The docket number for this case is Case No. 2:11-cv-00541-ROS.

The plaintiff alleged that he allegedly owed a debt to a creditor that was transferred to the defendant ARA. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant called him in order to collect the alleged debt which related to a car repossession from the year 2000. The plaintiff alleged that he disputed the debt, saying that the debt was not his and that he did not have a car in the year 2000. He alleged that the defendant(s) informed him that they would take legal action against him if he did not pay the debt even though the statute of limitations period for the debt had already expired. The plaintiff alleged that ARA requested for the plaintiff to set up a payment arrangement with the company’s attorney. He also alleged that the defendant(s) threatened to garnish his wages. Additionally, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant(s) made threatening remarks about his employment history and social security number as well as conducted an inquiry into his credit report without his consent. 

The plaintiff alleged that the following actions, amongst others, of the defendants were in violation of the FDCPA: using profane and abusive language; misrepresenting the character, amount, or legal status of the debt; and threatening to take action that they cannot legally take.

ARA and the company’s employees were also sued in the United States District Court for the Central District of California in the Western Division for alleged violations of the FDCPA and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Practices Act (“RFDCPA”). The docket number for this case is Case No. 2:12-cv-09470-JC.

In this case, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant attempted to collect an alleged debt from her that the plaintiff believed to have been paid off in 1997. She alleged that the defendant called her phone, pretended to be an old friend, and failed to inform her that the call was in relation to a debt. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant also told her that a judgment was going out against her on that day and urged her to pay the debt. The plaintiff alleged that by saying this, she was led to believe that the defendant had obtained a judgment against her or that the defendant would file a lawsuit against her if she did not pay the debt. The plaintiff alleged that to her knowledge, ARA did not file suit or obtain a judgment against her, and that they are unable to do so because the statute of limitations period for the debt had already expired.

The plaintiff alleged that ARA and its employees used false or deceptive representations in connection with the debt collection, misrepresented the debt, used false means to collect the debt, and also used unfair or unconscionable means. The plaintiff alleged that these actions constituted violations of the FDCPA. 

In another case, ARA was sued in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in the San Francisco Division for alleged violations of the FDCPA, RFDCPA, and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The docket number for this case is Case No. 4:19-cv-03685-PJH.

The plaintiff in this case alleged that she began to receive calls to her phone in regard to an alleged credit card debt. She alleged that the defendant left her a voicemail in which it informed her of the amount of the alleged debt and threatened to freeze her credit if she did not pay off the debt. The plaintiff alleged that she was confused about the call because the last payment made on the debt was in 2001. The plaintiff also alleged that she had never given her cell phone number to the defendant. 

Afterwards, the plaintiff alleged that she received another call from the representative who left her the voicemail message, and that he reiterated what he said in the message. The plaintiff alleged that he then transferred her to another employee who spoke to her in a rude and threatening way. The plaintiff alleged that she asked for a written statement but that the employee refused to send one because he claimed they had already sent a previous one. Additionally, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant threatened to sue her if she did not pay off the alleged debt. Allegedly, the plaintiff then requested for the defendant to stop calling her. 

The plaintiff alleged that despite her request, the defendant continued to call her and that in many of the calls, she had to wait for a period of time before being connected to a representative. The plaintiff alleged that the calls being placed to her phone came from an automated telephone dialing system.

The plaintiff alleged that amongst other actions, the defendant violated the FDCPA by repeatedly placing calls to her phone even after she asked it to stop, by engaging in abusive and harassing behavior, and by threatening to sue the plaintiff even though it did not have the right to do so.

In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida in the Ft. Myers Division, ARA was also sued for alleged violations of the FDCPA. The docket number for this case is Case No. 2:10-cv-00514-CEH-SPC. 

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant placed multiple calls to her phone every day for almost four weeks in order to collect an alleged debt. She alleged that the defendant called her from a registered number as well as a blocked number. She alleged that in these calls, the defendant never identified itself, nor did it inform her that the calls were coming from a debt collector. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant threatened to garnish her wages and place a lien on her property if she did not make an immediate payment. Additionally, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant falsely represented that it worked with the attorney general’s office. 

According to the plaintiff, the defendant allegedly violated the FDCPA by repeatedly calling her phone, engaging in false and deceptive practices, using harassing or abusive behavior, and failing to inform her of their identity as a debt collector, amongst 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.