consumers are covered by the fair debt collection practices act.
consumers are covered by the fair debt collection practices act.
who is covered by the fair debt collection practices act?
consumers
a number of lawsuits have been filed challenging the legality of these programs. in a lawsuit in iowa,the check diversion company agreed to refund money to class members. a federal court in michigan ruled that the private company was violating the fair debt collection practices act by using district attorney letterhead and falsely threatening consumers with arrest. a federal court in sacramento, california ruled that the person who ran the private company violated the fair debt collection practices act and california law by charging unlawful fees, pretending to be the district attorney's office and making false threats to have check writers arrested., and later awarded about $750,000 in damages. a federal court in san jose, california ruled that the two individuals that made millions from the company they owned had violated both the fair debt collection practices act and the california unfair competition law by charging fees for a diversion class and imposing other fees, by impersonating the district attorney's office in their communications with check writers, and by falsely claiming that check writers who did not pay those fees would be prosecuted. after a trial in which both the plaintiffs and defendants complained about the verdict, the judge in the case vacated the parties later settled for an undisclosed sum. in another california case,the federal court in san francisco approved a $3,250,000 settlement. in 2014, a new lawsuit was filed against in washington, alleging violations of the fair debt collection practices act and the washington consumer protection act. in december 2014, consumers filed a lawsuit against corrective solutions in california. then, in march 2015, the consumer financial protection bureau filed a lawsuit against national corrective group, inc. and related entities, and obtained a consent order prohibiting these companies from masquerading as the prosecutor and making phony prosecution threats.
bad check restitution program
in the federal tax case of "smith v. united states", the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit stated that the taxpayer's: ". . . . invocation of the fair debt collection act is entirely without merit, as the statute expressly excludes 'any officer or employee of the united states . . . to the extent that collecting or attempting to collect any debt is in the performance of his official duties' from the definition of 'debt collector.' 15 u.s.c. section 1692a(6)(c)." in 1998, however, congress amended the internal revenue code by adding a new section 6304, "fair tax collection practices," which refers to and includes certain rules that are similar to some provisions of the fair debt collection practices act.
fair debt collection practices act