[hannah]

Strict liability is an issue of statutory interpretation, and in passing the FDCPA, Congress found "abundant evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices." 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a). The express purpose of passing the FDCPA was "to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors, to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistent State action to protect consumers against debt collection abuses." § 1692(e).

Because the FDCPA, like the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., is a remedial statute, it should be construed liberally in favor of the consumer. See, e.g., Pfennig v. Household Credit Servs., Inc., 286 F.3d 340, 344 (6th Cir. 2002) (TILA); Rossman v. Fleet Bank Nat'l Assoc., 280 F.3d 384, 390 (3d Cir. 2002) (TILA); Ellis v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 160 F.3d 703, 707 (11th Cir. 1998) (TILA); Plummer v. Gordon, 193 F. Supp. 2d 460, 463 (D. Conn. 2002) (FDCPA); Ross v. Commercial Fin. Servs., 31 F. Supp. 2d 1077, 1079 (N.D. Ill. 1999) (FDCPA); Harrison v. NBD, Inc., 968 F. Supp. 837, 844 (E.D.N.Y. 1997) (FDCPA).

All that is required is proof that the statute was violated, although even then it is within the district court's discretion to decide whether and if so how much to award, up to the $1,000 ceiling. E.g., Tolentino v. Friedman, supra, 46 F.3d at 651; Clomon v. Jackson, supra, 988 F.2d at 1322.

Clomon v. Jackson, 988 F.2d at 1322 establishes that all that is required for an award of statutory damages is proof that the statute was violated, although a court must then exercise its discretion to determine how much to award, up to the $ 1,000.00 ceiling.

“The FDCPA is a strict liability statute”, see Russell v. Equifax A.R.S., 74 F.3d 30, 33 (2d Cir. 1996) and a “Plaintiff need only prove one violation to trigger liability.” See Cavallaro v. Law Office of Shapiro & Kreisman, 933 F. Supp 1148, 1153 (E.D.N.Y. 1996).

[centex]

Originally Posted by hannah

All that is required is proof that the statute was violated, although even then it is within the district court's discretion to decide whether and if so how much to award, up to the $1,000 ceiling. E.g., Tolentino v. Friedman, supra, 46 F.3d at 651; Clomon v. Jackson, supra, 988 F.2d at 1322.

This is the point that most people miss when I reference real harm...it does no good to take a weak case to court only to be awarded a whopping one dollar, which could and has happened. Too many people believe the crap spewed on some of the boards that it is an automatic grand, when in fact the only place a thousand bucks enters the equation is in the cap.

[hannah]

That is very true...you can ask the Court to award you $1000 but even if you prove your case, you will only get as much up to the $1k limit as the Court decides you deserve. I always settle if I can...

[hannah]

More on strict liability:

"FDCPA is a strict-libility statute." Czerwinski v. Risk Mgmt. Alternatives Int'l Corp. Can., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19113, No. 05-C-945, 2006 WL 897768, *1 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 4, 2006); see Randolph v. IMBS, Inc., 368 F.3d 726, 730 (7th Cir. 2004).

"Debt collectors may not make false claims, period." Randolph, 368 F.3d at 730. Thus, [*5] a debt collector may violate § 1692e even if it unintentionally makes a false statement. Turner v. J.V.D.B. & Assocs., Inc., 330 F.3d 991, 995 (7th Cir. 2003) ("[u]nder § 1692e ignorance is no excuse."); Russell v. Equifax A.R.S., 74 F.3d 30, 33 (2d Cir. 1996); Czerwinski, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19113, 2006 WL 897768, at *1.

A debt collector may violate the law even if it caused no actual damage to the plaintiff. Czerwinski, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19113, 2006 WL 897768, at *1; see Keele v. Wexler, 149 F.3d 589, 593 (7th Cir. 1998).

"The FDCPA does not require proof of actual damages as a precursor to the recovery of statutory damages." Keele v Wexler, 149 F.3d at 593.