same alleged violation of the federal fair debt law. Under the PUTPCPL, those who violate both the FDCPA and the PUTPCPL shall not incur cumulative penalties. See 73 P.S. § 2270.5(c). Defendants argue that the Pennsylvania legislature intended to preclude claimants from receiving a windfall by twice prosecuting the same defendant for the same conduct. Therefore, plaintiffs must choose between prosecuting their claims under the state or federal law. Defendants also argue that the proposed class cannot proceed under the PUTPCPL without individual evidence of actual damages by each proposed class member. According to the defendants, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court limited recovery under the UTPCPL to actual damages. See Weinberg v. Sun Company, Inc., 565 Pa. 612, 777 A.2d 442, 446 (2001) (<HOLDING>). Because plaintiffs have failed to allege
holding that restitution is proper under  2259 only to the extent the defendants offense proximately caused a victims losses holding that an award of restitution is only for the loss caused by the specific conduct that is the basis of the offense of conviction holding that statutory damages are unavailable under the utpcpl in the absence of an ascertainable loss of money or property proximately caused by the defendants prohibited conduct holding that a plaintiff can seek statutory damages even in the absence of actual damages holding that the loss of a contract failed to constitute ascertainable loss under cutpa