A Consumer Protection and Employment Law Firm Serving California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

Are debt collectors allowed to sue you?

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok

One common tactic debt collectors employ is to threaten to sue the debtor unless the debt is paid. Most people in the U.S. are terrified of a lawsuit, and they will do almost anything to make that possibility go away. However, it may be illegal for the debt collector to threaten you with a lawsuit. Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, bill collectors cannot lie to you. If they do, they can be sued and may have to pay the debtor’s attorney’s fees as well as a fine.

If you haven’t paid a debt, you can be sued and a judgment may be granted against you in court. However, if a debt collector has no intention of suing you, the collector cannot say the company will sue you. The company will not sue you if the debt is illegitimate, or if they don’t intend to sue you. For example, if you owe a company $200, and a debt collector threatens to sue you, that is probably a false statement under the FDCPA – virtually no debt collector would file a lawsuit over $200. Also, if you don’t owe the money and a collector threatens to sue, the collector is violating the FDCPA.

In Texas recently, a woman filed a lawsuit against a debt collector who threatened to sue her and called her a “deadbeat”. The woman repeatedly requested written validation of the debt, and the collector refused. The collector is currently being sued for several violations of the FDCPA, one of which is lying with the threat to sue.

If you been threatened by a debt collector please give my office a call at (877) 449-8898

Quick Navigation

Free Consultation

Undisclosed
Settlement

TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.

More Details
$750,000
Settlement

Common fund class-wide TCPA settlement against home healthcare provider. Final approval granted.

More Details
$27.6M
Settlement

TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.

More Details
$5.2M
Settlement

/

Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.

More Details
$390,000
Settlement

TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.

More Details
$1,500,000
Settlement

/

TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.

More Details
$6,500,000
Settlement

/

Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.

More Details
$13,000,000
Settlement

/

$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.

More Details
$34,000,000
Settlement

/

One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.

More Details
$150,000,000
Settlement

/

Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.

More Details
$100,000,000
Settlement

/ /

Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.

More Details

Office Locations

Copyright 2025 Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. All Rights Reserved.