Yes. BC Services, Inc. (“BC Services”) was sued in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), a federal statute that limits the actions of debt collectors during the debt collection process. The docket number for this case is Case No. 1:12-cv-01183-MEH. The plaintiff allegedly incurred a medical debt that the defendant attempted to collect. The plaintiff alleged that she disputed the validity of the debt. The plaintiff alleged that she received a demand letter from the defendant that contained the amount of her alleged debt but failed to contain the name of the original creditor. After she received this letter, the plaintiff alleged that she began to receive collection calls from the defendant who left a number of recorded messages on her home phone. The plaintiff alleged that because her answering service was not secure, the voicemails left by the defendant could be heard by anyone who called to retrieve messages. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant contacted her children, which she believed was done to embarrass or to harass her. The plaintiff then alleged that the defendant sent her husband the same letter that they had originally sent her, which would cause an unsophisticated consumer to be confused as to who actually owed the debt. Additionally, she alleged that she was then sent a letter from the defendant’s lawyer who demanded payment from her and told her that she should contact a bank or another entity for a loan. The plaintiff alleged that in the lawyer’s letter, it stated that the defendant would take legal action against the plaintiff if she did not pay the alleged debt and that she could owe more than the original amount. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant filed a lawsuit against her in which they claimed that they were the assignee of the debt yet in previous letters they had claimed that the debt was placed with them. Furthermore, the plaintiff alleged that in the lawsuit, the defendant sought to recover a higher amount than previously stated. The plaintiff also alleged that she had a phone call with an employee of the defendant before the lawsuit occurred. She alleged that in this phone call, the employee gave her two different numbers for the amount that she owed and threatened to garnish her wages if she did not pay the debt. The plaintiff alleged that during this collection process, the defendant violated the FDCPA on multiple counts. She alleged that the defendant acted unlawfully by failing to disclose the name of the debt’s original creditor, contacting a third party for reasons other than locating the debtor, harassing or abusing the consumer, attempting to collect an amount greater than the original debt owed, and threatening to take action that they legally cannot take. Another federal lawsuit was filed against BC Services for alleged violations of the FDCPA and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. The docket number for this case is Case No. ​​2:16-cv-00561-JAD-PAL. In this case, the plaintiff allegedly owed a debt to a creditor but filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and discharged the alleged debt. The plaintiff alleged that after she was granted the discharge, the defendant attempted to collect a discharged debt. She alleged that the defendant called her cell phone and told her that she had to pay for the debt. The plaintiff then alleged that she informed the defendant that the debt was discharged, to which the defendant stated that she must still pay the debt or face garnishment of her wages. The plaintiff alleged that because she was unaware of her rights and because the defendant made numerous threats and calls to her phone, she made arrangements to repay the debt even though she believed that the debt was discharged. The plaintiff alleged that after she had paid a sum of money to the defendant, she learned that the defendant did not have the right to collect on a discharged debt. Afterwards, the plaintiff alleged that she asked the defendant to refund the money but that she did not receive any money back. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s actions during the collection of a discharged debt were unlawful and violated the FDCPA. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s use of deceptive and misleading behavior, false representations, and unfair means; the misrepresentation of the amount of debt that was owed; and the attempt to collect an amount that was not authorized by the debt’s creation agreement all constituted violations of the FDCPA. BC Services was also sued for alleged violations of the FDCPA in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in the Palm Beach Division. The docket number for this case is Case No. 9:15-cv-81188-KAM. The plaintiff alleged that she had agreed to the purchase of a medical device and that she paid off the total amount of the device in whole. The plaintiff alleged that she then received a collection notice from the defendant which claimed that the plaintiff still owed money on her purchase. She alleged that she provided the defendant with proof of payment via fax and that she verified that the fax was received. Afterwards, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant continued to contact her in order to collect the alleged debt. The plaintiff alleged that she sent the defendant multiple faxes which all contained her proof of payment but that the defendant continued to mail her collection letters for the balance that she had already paid off. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant acted in violation of the FDCPA by attempting to collect a debt that was already paid off in whole, by representing themselves as an entity other than their true identity, and by failing to follow the verification requirements laid out by 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.