Author Topic: Spokeo Supreme court case  (Read 5170 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

rebuilder2006

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 465
Re: Spokeo Supreme court case
« Reply #150 on: May 19, 2016 06:00:22 PM »
I'm not referring to a consumer's possible claims against the JDB. 

I'm referring to a JDB who sues a consumer for a debt and the consumer claims the JDB doesn't have standing to sue.   Based upon what you said, if the JDB can show it sent the consumer a collection letter, it can show actual damages (standing to sue).

1214

BellEbutton

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 2638
Re: Spokeo Supreme court case
« Reply #151 on: May 19, 2016 06:03:36 PM »
1214

Beat your head against the wall all you want.  I'm not the one who claimed postage confers standing to sue.

Bruno the JDB Killer

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 11660
Re: Spokeo Supreme court case
« Reply #152 on: May 19, 2016 07:45:00 PM »
:vbrofl: Google failed him again !


Useless comments from the Monkey House aside, standing can be granted by an act of law. The "damage" can be non-economic. I don't see this decision, which was FCRA based, affecting the FDCPA.

Congress drafted the FDCPA as a remedial measure to combat unfair debt collection practices. It makes no mention of economic damages. The purpose of the law is to punish and defer the offenders. It is basically drafted as a criminal statute in some respects.

 If SCOTUS wants to undo an entire statute and the congressional intent behind it, they are granting tree reign to debt collectors to violate our rights as they please. I doubt they'll do that.
I am not an attorney. Any information I post is strictly my opinion and should be treated as such.

coltfan1972

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 6532
  • My Shoes Cost More Than Your House
Re: Spokeo Supreme court case
« Reply #153 on: May 19, 2016 07:59:37 PM »
"Statutory damages are in effect bounties-means of inducing private persons to enforce a regulatory lawRedman v. RadioShack Corp., 768 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2014).
LexisNexis® Legal Newsroom- 05-17-2013 | 10:11 AM --

JONESBORO, Ark. - A federal judge in Arkansas on May 15 ruled that dismissal of a consumer's lawsuit against a debt collector is not proper because although the consumer posted messages on a website "in an odious manner," valid First Amendment concerns exist (Brandon Scroggin v. Credit Bureau of Jonesboro Inc., No. 12-0128, E.D. Ark.; 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 69070).

11181986

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 54
Re: Spokeo Supreme court case
« Reply #154 on: May 19, 2016 08:39:45 PM »

Useless comments from the Monkey House aside, standing can be granted by an act of law. The "damage" can be non-economic. I don't see this decision, which was FCRA based, affecting the FDCPA.

Congress drafted the FDCPA as a remedial measure to combat unfair debt collection practices. It makes no mention of economic damages. The purpose of the law is to punish and defer the offenders. It is basically drafted as a criminal statute in some respects.

 If SCOTUS wants to undo an entire statute and the congressional intent behind it, they are granting tree reign to debt collectors to violate our rights as they please. I doubt they'll do that.

It affects every single statute on the books.  The decision was not about the FCRA, it was about Article 3 standing.  So it will affect every single case where standing is contested.

The Court clearly states Congress is not allowed to give a Plaintiff standing they otherwise wouldn't have.  Well, that's exactly what they have been doing with consumer statutes over the years.

11181986

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 54
Re: Spokeo Supreme court case
« Reply #155 on: May 19, 2016 08:47:48 PM »
A better example is 1-800 numbers.  It is a violation of the FCRA for a consumer reporting agency not to have their phone number on their website. Before Spokeo, you could sue the CRA for not having their phone number on their website.  Spokeo basically did away with that and other similar violations.

rebuilder2006

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 465
Re: Spokeo Supreme court case
« Reply #156 on: May 19, 2016 08:51:05 PM »
A better example is 1-800 numbers.  It is a violation of the FCRA for a consumer reporting agency not to have their phone number on their website. Before Spokeo, you could sue the CRA for not having their phone number on their website.  Spokeo basically did away with that and other similar violations.

No, it did not...

11181986

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 54
Re: Spokeo Supreme court case
« Reply #157 on: May 19, 2016 09:18:10 PM »
Yes, it did.

rebuilder2006

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 465
Re: Spokeo Supreme court case
« Reply #158 on: May 19, 2016 11:25:14 PM »
Yes, it did.

Seriously?

Do you really need it explained to you?  :vbbiggrin:

Bruno the JDB Killer

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 11660
Re: Spokeo Supreme court case
« Reply #159 on: May 20, 2016 01:12:29 PM »
It affects every single statute on the books.  The decision was not about the FCRA, it was about Article 3 standing.  So it will affect every single case where standing is contested.

The Court clearly states Congress is not allowed to give a Plaintiff standing they otherwise wouldn't have.  Well, that's exactly what they have been doing with consumer statutes over the years.


I looked at article 3 briefly, I don't see that language. Every analysis of it I can find says standing can be conferred by an act of law. I should think after forty years, som body would have challenged the constitutionality of such statutes.
I am not an attorney. Any information I post is strictly my opinion and should be treated as such.

BellEbutton

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 2638
Re: Spokeo Supreme court case
« Reply #160 on: May 20, 2016 08:21:47 PM »
"Statutory damages are in effect bounties-means of inducing private persons to enforce a regulatory lawRedman v. RadioShack Corp., 768 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2014).

That particular cite doesn't raise the issue of an injury-in-fact, does it?  You should have cited what came before.

"If a violation of the statute is willful, a consumer whose receipt contains as a result of the violation data that should have been deleted, but who sustains no harm because no one stole his identity as a result of the violation, is nevertheless entitled to "statutory damages," as distinct from compensatory or punitive damages, of between $100 and $1000. 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(1)(A)."

As is evident, Redman was decided before Spokeo.  The purpose of Spokeo was to determine if Congress has the right to confer standing so courts' reactions to Spokeo remains to be seen. 






BellEbutton

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 2638
Re: Spokeo Supreme court case
« Reply #161 on: May 20, 2016 09:14:56 PM »

I looked at article 3 briefly, I don't see that language. Every analysis of it I can find says standing can be conferred by an act of law. I should think after forty years, som body would have challenged the constitutionality of such statutes.

The constitutionality may have been raised in the past in regard to another statute, but we just haven't connected the dots. 

Have you read the Spokeo decision?   It references the separation of powers.  In my opinion, it's a very important decision across the board.  If Congress can confer standing willynilly without proof of an injury to the plaintiff, what would prevent the federal government or state governments from pursing individual citizens for violations of a statute even though the federal or state government has not been injured?

ghost

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 1441
Re: Spokeo Supreme court case
« Reply #162 on: May 21, 2016 04:13:55 AM »
If it's challenged, I suppose you'd have to prove those damages.

The can feel free to challenge it. I wouldn't say some off the wall stuff like I had a loss of consortium with my wife barring some exceptional circumstances or something crazy like that, but I can certainly write an affidavit and describe under oath how I was annoyed by calls or spent time/money/energy researching the calls, and so forth.

This is really, really easy stuff.

I think any consumer could claim they were annoyed to the tune of $1 in damages by an offending phone call, which confers standing to sue
Lets do this

Bruno the JDB Killer

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 11660
Re: Spokeo Supreme court case
« Reply #163 on: May 21, 2016 01:27:27 PM »
The constitutionality may have been raised in the past in regard to another statute, but we just haven't connected the dots. 

Have you read the Spokeo decision?   It references the separation of powers.  In my opinion, it's a very important decision across the board.  If Congress can confer standing willynilly without proof of an injury to the plaintiff, what would prevent the federal government or state governments from pursing individual citizens for violations of a statute even though the federal or state government has not been injured?

Citizens are routinely prosecuted by the government when the government has not been harmed. However, somebody has been harmed...... and the manner in which harm occurs can be economic, physical, or perceived. Yell a racial slur at somebody and see how fast you get prosecuted. The person has no monetary damages, does he?

Consumer laws are designed to punish certain abusive behavior, the same way criminal statutes are. I wouldn't be surprised if Spokeo gets revisited when we have some new justices who actually know what the constitution means, not just what it says.
I am not an attorney. Any information I post is strictly my opinion and should be treated as such.

 

credit