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

Yes! You can sue a debt collector even if you owe the debt

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok

Over the years, many clients have asked me if they are able to sue a debt collector for harassment under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), even if they owe the debt they are being harassed about.  My answer to them is a resounding YES!  The FDCPA protects all consumers against debt collection abuse, whether the consumer owes the debt or not.  In fact, most of my clients who sue debt collectors for FDCPA violations, owe the debt.

Some common debt collection practices that violate the FDCPA are:


  • disclosing details about a consumer’s debt to 3rd parties (friends, co-workers, neighbors, relatives)

  • contacting consumers at inconvenient times (before 8:00am or after 9:00pm)  or at work after the consumer has told the debt collector to stop calling there.

  • threatening a consumer with violence

  • using abusive or profane language

  • threatening to take legal action when the debt collector has no intent or legal capacity to do so

  • implying that a consumer has committed a crime by not paying the debt.


If you are being harassed by debt collectors in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act, you may be entitled to compensation of $1,000 in statutory damages, plus actual damages and attorney fees.   Please call California Consumer Protection Attorney, Todd M. Friedman for a free consultation.

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.