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

Four reasons to sue a debt collector in violation of the FDCPA

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok

1. Most importantly, peace of mind! Make the debt collectors stop calling you in a harassing manner.  Remember how nice it was to answer your phone without screening it first?  Remember how peaceful it was before your phone began to ring 10+ times a day?   Are you sick of telling the debt collectors to stop calling you, only to have them call back a few minutes later?

2. Get paid!  If the debt collector is found to be in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the court will award you up to $1,000 compensation in statutory damages. These damages are provided by law as a penalty against debt collector found to be in violation the FDCPA and you do not have to prove that you suffered any actual harm.

3. Possibly get paid more!  If a debt collector’s abuse has caused you emotional stress, loss of sleep or if the debt collector’s harassment has affected your personal relationships or performance at work, you may be able to recover actual damages.

4. A free attorney!  According to the FDCPA, the debt collector in violation has to pay your attorney fees and court costs.

If you are being harassed by debt collectors be sure to document all of the debt collectors’ communications. And if a debt collector does anything that you think is untrue,  harassing or abusive, please contact Consumer Protection Attorney, Todd M. Friedman at 877-449-8898 for a free consultation.  If I agree to handle your FDCPA case, you won’t have to pay me any money up front. My fees are paid by the debt collector in violation.

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.