Here's the problem:
• any person who regularly collects debts owed to another (regularly collects test);
JDBs are not collecting debts "owed to another".
I personally believe that debt buyers are debt collectors. But based upon the fact that debt buyers are not collecting for anyone else, it could be ruled that they do not pass the principal purpose test.
I understand what you're saying. It is a big problem for the borrowers in this case.*
This is why I said that a pure textualist interpretation of the statute could spell doom for the borrowers in this case and consumers in general. When I say "pure textualist interpretation", I mean not at all looking beyond the text and not at all looking into the intent behind the text and applying that intent to an unforeseen market change. This includes looking to the circuit court attempts to address debt buyers consistent with the FDCPA; all of these attempts are outlined well in the ABA article
starting at the paragraph "A Circuit Split Nevertheless Arose".
"Unlike debt collectors, creditors have a “desire to protect their good will when collecting past due accounts,” which acts as an intrinsic restraint against abusive behavior. S. Rep. No. 95-382, at 2 (1977)"
So, do debt buyers have a desire to protect their good will when collecting past due accounts, which acts as an intrinsic restraint against abusive behavior?
Like you say, the outcome will be interesting.
*I'm only about half-way through reading all the supporting briefs in this case.