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

More about the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok
It has been a few weeks since we discussed options people in California who are being harassed by debt collectors have under the law. In that post, we mentioned the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, an important piece of federal legislation that seeks to protect people in debt from abusive debt collection practices. As we mentioned then, the FDCPA limits phone calls from debt collectors to between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. Unscrupulous debt collection agencies sometimes call debtors at all hours of the day and night, trying to disrupt their lives and harass them into paying their alleged debt. The FDCPA prohibits several other excessive debt collection techniques. Basically, anything that would seem unreasonable or wrong by the average person is something that debt collectors are not allowed to do. This includes accusing the debtor of committing a crime, threatening to garnish the debtor’s wages and using foul language on the phone or in writing. To enforce these rules, the FDCPA empowers victims of debt collector harassment to seek damages from the companies responsible. Statutory damages of $1,000, plus actual damages, are possible. A class action suit against a debt collector who has committed numerous violations against several debtors could result in a verdict of up to $500,000 or 1 percent of the net work of the debt collector. To assert your rights under the FDCPA, you should speak to an attorney with experience handling debt collection cases. A lawyer can review your case and advise you on what course of action to take, based on your goals. For instance, in many cases litigation is not necessary to get a debt collector to stop harassing you.

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.