SCOTUS Challenges Plaintiff Argument on Use of AG Letterhead in FDCPA Case

Yesterday the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Pamela Gillie, et al. (Plaintiff), v. Law Office of Eric A. Jones, LLC, et al. (Defendant). This is the first case in ten years regarding the FDCPA to be heard by the highest court, Ohio state officials are looking to overturn a lower court decision on whether a collector’s authorized use of attorney general letterhead violated the law.

According to this detailed account of the arguments by Courthouse News Service, it seems the justices leaned towards siding with the state. Justice Elena Kagan suggested that if the special counsel (i.e. third party debt collector) is using the letterhead, “The Ohio Attorney General is going to be more vigilant in policing the actions of that debt collector. You should want that.”

The central argument is how to protect consumers from scams that hide the fact that they are actually being contacted by a debt collector – who has a financial stake in the outcome – and not the government. Justice Breyer’s questions suggested that he sees the use of attorney general letterhead as helpful vs. harmful in the efforts to offer such protection.

insideARM Perspective

To me it seems pretty straightforward and not misleading. A consumer owes a debt to the State; for whatever reason the debt is not paid. The State hires a collector to pursue payment, and agrees to pay the collector for success (the collector is a business and not a charity). The collector contacts the consumer on the authority of the State, the entity to whom the consumer owes the debt.

Where is the deception? Why does the financial relationship between the State and the collector have any relevance to the consumer?

What I gather is that the core issue being raised by Plaintiffs is that if a collector (special counsel) is allowed to use official letterhead, then it opens the doors for scammers to use …unauthorized/fake official letterhead. Really? Making this against the law is going to stop scammers, who – by definition – don’t follow laws?