Say What You Mean: The FDCPA and Problems of Interpretation

In the thirty-six years since the passage of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the US Supreme Court has granted certiorari in FDCPA cases only three times -- though twice since 2009. As noted below, the pattern that emerges from these cases underscores the complexity of the FDCPA, reflects the current financial landscape in the US, and highlights the continuing problems for practitioners and the courts presented by judicial precedent that offers varied interpretations of the FDCPA's provisions. In addition to reviewing Marx, this survey considers several cases involving debt collectors' use of conditional language in their debt collection communications and the FDCPA's defined terms. This survey concludes with a brief discussion of recent regulatory actions taken by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. In Marx, the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's award of costs to the prevailing debt collector and the consumer appealed.