Skip to main content

Search

Fair Debt Collection: Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-213

Coverage: Applies to any person who simulates process “for the purpose of collecting money.”

Prohibited Practices: This is a criminal statute making it a criminal misdemeanor to simulate legal process “for the purpose of collecting money.”

Private Remedies: No mention of private remedies.

Fair Debt Collection: Wash. Rev. Code §§ 19.16.100 to 19.16.960 (Collection Agencies)

Coverage: Collection agencies, defined as persons engaged in directly soliciting for collection or collecting claims due or asserted to be due another; creditors who use a false name that creates the appearance of third-party involvement; furnishers of collection forms and systems; and any person or entity that is engaged in the business of purchasing delinquent or charged-off claims for collection purposes, whether it collects the claims itself or hires a third party for collection or an attorney for litigation in order to collect such claims. § 19.16.100(4), (7).

Fair Debt Collection: W. Va. Code §§ 47-16-1 to 47-16-5 (Collection Agencies)

Coverage: Collection agencies, defined as persons or business entities that are directly or indirectly engaged in the business of soliciting from or collecting for others indebtedness originally due or asserted to be owed or due another; engaged in asserting, prosecuting or enforcing those claims; or engaged in the business of soliciting, or holding themselves out as engaged in the business of soliciting, debts of any kind owed or due, or asserted to be owed or due, to any solicited person, firm, corporation or association for fee, commission or other compensation.

Fair Debt Collection: W. Va. Code §§ 46A-2-122 to 46A-2-129a, 48-1-307 (Consumer Credit Protection)

Coverage: Applies to debt collectors, defined as persons or organizations engaging directly or indirectly in soliciting claims for collection or in the collection of claims owed or due or alleged to be owed or due by a consumer. Attorneys exempt if representing creditors in their own name, and not operating a collection agency under the direction of a non-attorney. § 46A-2-122. Separate but similar prohibitions apply to private collectors of child or spousal support. § 48-1-307.

Fair Debt Collection: Wis. Stat. § 218.04 (Collection Agencies)

Coverage: Collection agencies: person (defined to include business entities) engaging in the business of collecting or receiving payment for others of any account, bill or other indebtedness. Exempts lawyers, financial institutions, insurers and their agents, and real estate brokers and salespersons. Also exempts district attorneys or persons contracting with district attorneys collecting pursuant to dishonored check diversion statute. § 218.04(1)(a).

Fair Debt Collection: Wis. Stat. §§ 427.101 to 427.105 (Consumer Act)

Coverage: Debt collectors: any person engaging directly or indirectly in soliciting or collecting claims owed or due or alleged to be owed or due a merchant by a consumer. “Claim” is defined as an obligation arising from a consumer transaction, including transaction for agricultural purposes. §§ 427.102, 427.103. “Merchant” is defined broadly to include sellers, lessors, manufacturers, creditors, arrangers of credit, and their assignees or successors. § 421.301.

Fair Debt Collection: Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 33-11-101 to 33-11-116 (Collection Agencies)

Coverage: Collection agencies, defined as persons who: engage in business the purpose of which is collection of debts for Wyoming creditors; regularly collect or attempt to collect, directly or indirectly, for Wyoming creditors debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another; take assignment of debts for the purpose of collecting such debts; directly or indirectly solicit debts for collection that are owed or due or asserted to be owed or due a Wyoming creditor; use fictitious name to collect own accounts receivable; collect debts in-state from debtors located in-state by

Fair Debt Collection: Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 40-14-507

Coverage: Creditors.

Prohibited Practices: Extortionate extensions of credit, i.e., if creditor and consumer understand that delay in repayment may result in the use of violent or criminal means to harm the person, property or reputation of any person.

Private Remedies: Debt arising from extortionate extension of credit is unenforceable by civil judicial process.

Truth in Lending: 11.2.4.2.4 Failure to provide a disclosure

The complete failure to provide a disclosure (in contrast to providing an inaccurate disclosure) can cause monetary harm when the content of the disclosure would have affected the consumer’s behavior, as discussed in the preceding subsections. But there is still a good argument that a concrete injury exists regardless of whether the consumer would have acted differently upon receiving the disclosure.

Truth in Lending: 11.2.4.2.8 Informational injury

Because disclosure is such an important part of TILA, another potential harm caused by disclosure-related violations is that the consumer does not receive information that Congress deemed valuable. This section discusses the loss of knowledge as an injury, rather than monetary losses and other adverse effects of failing to provide the information. This type of harm is called informational injury.

Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices: 10.2.1 Introduction

The normal UDAP case seeks to hold the principal—that is, the corporation, employer, or other deep pocket—liable for the acts of those directly dealing with the consumer, such as sales personnel, commissioned salespersons, and other employees. The principal is usually a stable entity easily served with court papers and usually possesses sufficient assets to satisfy a judgment. Requests for injunctions or other nonmonetary relief may only be practical if the principal is joined as a party, and naming the principal may also enhance discovery.

Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices: 10.2.3.1 The General Rule That Principals Are Liable

Common law doctrine in most jurisdictions holds principals liable for misrepresentations made by agents who are acting within their actual or apparent authority.30 For torts involving bodily injury, the doctrine of respondeat superior holds masters liable only for the acts of “servants,” that is, for agents whose activity the principal controls.31 But principals are liable for the misrepresentations of all their agents, not just their servants.32

Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices: 10.2.3.2 Liability Even Where Agent Acts Without Authority

Courts do not immunize a principal even if the agent lacks actual authority.40 Apparent authority is shown when a reasonable person would suppose the agent has the authority they purport to exercise, and that belief is traceable to the principal’s manifestations.41 Even if there is no apparent authority, some state insurance laws or regulations hold an insurer liable for the acts of insurance agents selling policies for that insurer.42

Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices: 10.2.3.3 Are Dealers Agents for the Manufacturer?

An issue of practical import is whether a dealer selling a vehicle or other product is an agent for the product’s manufacturer, making the manufacturer liable for the dealer’s conduct. A consumer who seeks to hold a manufacturer liable for the acts of its dealers should do more than just categorically state that a dealer is an agent of the manufacturer. Specific facts that can establish such an agency should be alleged.45

Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices: 10.3.1 Introduction

Principal officers, directors, owners, and/or related companies with assets may be the preferred defendants when the company doing business with the consumer is little more than an empty shell. Even if the company doing business with the consumer is solvent at the initiation of the lawsuit, it may be prudent to join principal officers, owners, or related companies in case the company is later dissolved.