Defining the Violation: How Inconsistent Interpretations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act's Statute of Limitations Provision Rub Salt in the Wounds of Injured Consumers

Abstract

In 1977, Congress enacted the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) in an effort to provide injured consumers with uniform protection against the systematically abusive practices of the debt collection industry. The FDCPA creates a private right of action for victims to sue; however, an individual who wishes to bring a private suit under the FDCPA must do so “within one-year from the date on which the violation occurs.” The effectiveness of this private right of action has been unsettled due to the circuit split over the meaning of this provision.The principal disagreement focuses on when the “violation occurs”: does it occur when the debt collector engages in the proscribed conduct, or does it occur when the consumer is actually harmed by that conduct? Moreover, if the violation occurs when the debt collector engages in the proscribed act, can a “discovery rule” apply to delay the running of the SOL until the consumer finds out what the debt collector has done? This Note explores the various analyses circuit courts apply to determine the date on which an FDCPA violation occurs.Unless federal courts adopt a uniform analysis for determining when an FDCPA violation occurs, injured consumers will continue to receive inconsistent protection under the statute. This Note proposes a two-pronged analysis for determining the date on which an FDCPA violation occurs: (1) when did the consumer’s private right of action under the FDCPA accrue; and (2) is the case one in which the equitable tolling doctrine should apply? Specifically, this Note argues that due to the remedial nature of the statute, federal courts should interpret a consumer’s private right of action under the FDCPA to accrue when he or she suffers the kind of harm for which the statute was meant to provide a private damages remedy.