Federal Trade Commission v. Check Investors, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an entity engaged in collection activity on a defaulted debt acquired 10 No. 07-1075 from another is a “debt collector” under the FDCPA even though it “may actually be owed the debt”
• finding that writers of insufficiently funded checks, who were subject to misleading collection practices, qualified as “consumers” under § 5
• emphasizing that the focus of the debt collector analysis should be whether the debt was in default when it was acquired, joining the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits
• rejecting argument that payors of NSF checks were “criminals or tortfeasors,” not “consumers,” as such labels are “irrelevant”
• agreeing with other circuits that “there is no ‘fraud exception’ in the FDCPA” and determining that check drawn on account with insufficient funds created “debt”
• “[A]n assignee of an obligation is not a ‘debt collector' if the obligation is not in default at the time of assignment”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).