California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Rosenthal) is a state law that mirrors the FDCPA and benefit consumers who reside in the state of California.  It provides added protection over and above the FDCPA!  While the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act applies only to debt collection agencies and not the original creditors, California law extends the protection to creditors as well.

Generally, consumers have up to one year from the incident date to file a claim against the collection agency and any collector who violated Rosenthal.  Consumer who prevail in a lawsuit against debt collectors are entitled to receive at least $100 and up to $1,000 in statutory damages, plus the award of reasonable attorney fees and costs.

Adding the statutory damages for violations of the FDCPA (up to $1000) to the statutory damages for violations of Rosenthal (from $100 to $1000) totals a maximum of $2000 in statutory damages for debt collectors’ violations.  In addition, in its attempts to collect a debt, if an individual provides his/her name to you by signing the violative debt collection letter or by disclosing their name on a violative debt collection phone call to you, each of those individuals can be sued personally for these violations, adding an additional $2000 for each individual violator.

Florida has enacted additional laws that supplement the FDCPA and might provide you with even greater protection than the FDCPA if you live in that state. Florida’s Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA) protects you from abusive debt collection practices. Like the FDCPA, the Florida CCPA covers debt collectors. However, unlike the FDCPA, it also covers original creditors.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&division=3.&title=1.6C.5.&part=4.&chapter=&article=

The Act, which will apply to debt sold or resold on or after January 1, 2014, regulates entities buying consumer debt for collection purposes, by—among other rules—imposing strict documentation requirements.

Debt buyers may not engage in written collection efforts unless they possess a copy of a contract or document evidencing the debtor’s agreement to the debt and can demonstrate certain information concerning the debt. Specifically, they must be able to provide documentation showing the debt buyer’s ownership of the debt (i.e. , its authority to collect the debt), the debt balance at charge-off, the date of default or last payment, and the names and addresses of the creditor at charge-off and of the debt buyer (and any other purchasers of the debt). Debt buyers must inform debtors of their right to request the required documentation and upon receiving a debtor’s request must provide that information within 15 days. Additionally, written collection demands must notify debtors of the consequences of nonpayment—whether, in particular, the debt is time-barred and whether it may be reported to credit agencies under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Act also requires that settlement agreements with debtors be “documented in open court or otherwise reduced to writing.” Debt buyers receiving payments from debtors must provide written receipts detailing the status of the outstanding debt, and where the debt buyer accepts a payment in full (or deems the debt satisfied), it must provide a final statement to the debtor. The Act imposes stringent documentation requirements for debt buyers that choose to initiate litigation. Complaints must include a prescribed set of allegations concerning the debt, and no default or other judgment may be entered unless the debt buyer produces records, authenticated by sworn declaration, supporting each statement.

Perhaps most critically, the Act creates a private right of action allowing individuals to bring suit against debt buyers who engage in illegal collection practices. Courts may award actual damages, statutory damages, and attorney’s fees and costs and even have the discretion to levy civil penalties of up to $500,000 in class actions brought against debt buyers engaging in patterns of willful noncompliance with the law. Debt buyers can escape civil penalties if they can demonstrate that their violations were unintentional, resulted from bona fide error, and were made despite reasonable efforts to ensure compliance.

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) places limits on unsolicited prerecorded telemarketing calls to be made to your landline home telephone. It also prohibits all autodialed or prerecorded calls or text messages to your cell phone. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued rules and regulations implementing the TCPA that went into effect in 1992.

In 2012, the FCC revised its TCPA rules to require telemarketers (1) to obtain prior express written consent from consumers before robocalling them, (2) to no longer allow telemarketers to use an “established business relationship” to avoid getting consent from consumers when their home phones, and (3) to require telemarketers to provide an automated, interactive “opt-out” mechanism during each robocall so consumers can immediately tell the telemarketer to stop calling.

Provides a private right of action to any person or entity to enjoin further TCPA violations and collect “actual monetary loss” or receive $500 (whichever is greater) for each violation, whichever is greater.³⁶ A called party may receive up to three times that amount if the caller willfully and knowingly violated section (b).³⁷ In other words, each violation may expose a caller to liability of between $500 and $1,500 for each call, text, or facsimile. However, if actual damages exceed $500 per incident, the damages could be greater, although that would be the exception and not the rule, and the trebling of damages falls within a court’s discretion.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-expands-robocall-ban-11594055693

According to the Federal Trade Commission in its report, 40 Years of Experience with the Fair Credit Reporting Act, an FTC Staff Report with Summary Interpretations (July 2011), the FCRA governs the collection, assembly, and use of consumer report information in the United States. Enacted in 1970, the FCRA has since been amended several times. The two most extensive amendments were the Consumer Credit Reporting Reform Act of 1996 (the 1996 Amendments) and the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACT Act).

The FCRA regulates the practices of consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) that collect and compile consumer information into consumer reports for use by credit grantors, insurance companies, employers, landlords, and other entities in making eligibility decisions. The FCRA was enacted to: (1) prevent the misuse of sensitive consumer information by limiting recipients to those who have a legitimate need for it; and (2) improve the accuracy and integrity of credit reporting systems. Under the FCRA, CRAs are required to establish procedures to ensure accuracy and legitimacy in reporting, disclose information in their files to consumers, and investigate disputed items.

The 1996 Amendments expanded the duties of CRAs, particularly in regard to disputes, by establishing a time frame for investigations, mandating written notice of the results, and adding restrictions on the reinsertion of deleted items. The 1996 Amendments also increased the obligations of “users” of consumer reports, particularly employers. Most significantly, they imposed duties on a new class of entities by introducing requirements related to accuracy and dispute resolution by furnishers of information to CRAs. (The ensuing years brought a number of more modest revisions, the most significant of which was a 1999 amendment that specifically authorized the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Office of Thrift Supervision, and National Credit Union Administration to promulgate regulations under the FCRA.)

The FACT Act bolstered protections against identity theft and its effects. It also ordered agencies to promulgate rules governing the proper disposition of consumer report information, granted consumers the right to request free annual reports, and required businesses to provide copies of relevant records to identity-theft victims.