Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc.
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 12, 2017 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Decided
- June 12, 2017
- Term
- October Term 2016
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Gorsuch
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice GORSUCH delivered the opinion of the Court. Disruptive dinnertime calls, downright deceit, and more besides drew Congress's eye to the debt collection industry. From that scrutiny emerged the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, a statute that authorizes private lawsuits and weighty fines designed to deter wayward collection practices. So perhaps it comes as little surprise that we now face a question about who exactly qualifies as a "debt collector" subject to the Act's rigors. Everyone agrees that the term embraces the repo man-someone hired by a creditor to collect an outstanding debt. But what if you purchase a debt and then try to collect it for yourself-does that make you a "debt collector" too? That's the nub of the dispute now before us. The parties approach the question from common ground. The complaint alleges that CitiFinancial Auto loaned money to petitioners seeking to buy cars; that petitioners defaulted on those loans; that respondent Santander then purchased the defaulted loans from CitiFinancial; and that Santander sought to collect in ways petitioners believe troublesome under the Act. The parties agree, too, that in deciding whether Santander's conduct falls within the Act's ambit we should look to statutory language defining the term "debt collector" to embrace anyone who "regularly collects or attempts to collect ... debts owed or due ... another."…
Excerpt of a 19,908-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.