I was reading some complaints from the Federal Court in Denver. While researching the next defendant I am going after, I read some case law I thought was pretty basic.
Sometimes I think that people that are versed in the FDCPA take this basic case law for granted. This basic case law gets overlooked and thus not communicated.
Anyhow, here it is:
“The Act is a strict liability statute; violations of the Act do not need to be
intentional to be actionable.” Smith v. National Credit Systems, Inc., 807
F.Supp.2d 836, 840 (D.Az. 2011).
“Because the FDCPA “is a “strict liability statute,” Plaintiff need only demonstrate
“one violation of its provisions” to be entitled to a favorable judgment.” Doshay v.
Global Credit and Collection Corporation, 796 F.Supp.2d 1301, 1304 (D.Colo.
The FDCPA is a remedial statute, it should be construed liberally in favor of the
consumer. Johnson v. Riddle, 305 F.3d 1107, 1117 (10th Cir. 2002).
Fight the Essential Fight, Boiler