Consumer Litigation Defense
Our Consumer Litigation Defense practice area primarily focuses on the defense of claims brought by consumers under consumer privacy and financial regulations, including but not limited to, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Truth in Caller Id Act, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Illinois Collection Agency Act, and similar state and federal laws. Our typical representations include the defense of individual as well as class action claims.
At Messer Strickler, Ltd., we provide consultations for our clients to implement policies and procedures to reduce the likelihood of claims from the start. Our close relationships with numerous trade organizations, helps us keep apprised early of new developments in the law, which helps us foresee potential issues our clients may face.
Among the many corporate and individual clients we have represented over the years we’re proud to share that we have won or settled a vast majority of our cases.
Messer Strickler, Ltd.provides Consumer Litigation Defense for a variety of clients including:
• Financial institutions
• Collection agencies
• Skip tracers, asset purchasers
• Law firms
• Corporate shareholders
District Court Sanctions Consumer Lawyer; Rules in Favor of Collector!
Section 1927 of the U.S. Code forbids lawyers from suing “unreasonable and vexatiously.” In 2003, a collection agency tried to collect a credit card debt from a Russell McComb. Lexis-Nexis mistakenly located Russell McComb, Sr. who was sent a collection letter. The true debtor was Russell McComb, Jr.
McComb, Sr. had recently filed for bankruptcy in which he discharged a different debt to the same credit card company. McComb, Sr.’s attorney, David Philipps, sued the agency for violating FDCPA. The agency explained the Lexis-Nexis error and said it was not attempting to collect the debt that McComb, Sr. had already discharged. But David Philipps pressed the suit.
Messer Strickler, Ltd. argued the suit should have been dropped after the identity error was revealed, and that Philipps was suing “unreasonably and vexatiously” in hopes of a profitable settlement. The court agreed, dismissing the case “with prejudice,” and ordered Philipps to pay the collection agency $12,000.