However, I think this is the minority view. And it's not the view of the FTC. The FTC Staff Guidance given to the FTC attorneys gives the direction that no attorneys are subject to the FDCPA, and that advice has been relied upon by several circuits.
Not trying to beat a dead horse here, but I too must respectfully disagree. (I'm also not trying to quibble. Just trying to clarify.
Maybe I'm still missing something, but the link I provided is from the FTC. It's entitled "FTC Facts for Consumers", dated February 2009.
In the third paragraph of page one, the FTC pamphlet specifically states that lawyers who collect debts on a regular basis are debt collectors and subject to FDCPA. This seems to fit H&H perfectly.
Does the FTC pamphlet, provided to consumers, contradict FTC Staff Guidance given to FTC attorneys? If so, why would that be? (I don't know what other circuits, or Rosenthal, have said about this, but it seems clear from the FTC's consumer pamphlet that debt collection attorneys/firms are not exempt from FDCPA).
Just trying to grasp why debt collection attorneys/firms, especially the likes of H&H, wouldn't be subject to the FDCPA in Cali (or elsewhere for that matter) per the FTC's own published guidelines to consumers.
Has something changed since 2009?