ACA International Files Amicus Brief To Protect Good-Faith Litigation Standard In FDCPA Case

ACA International has filed an amicus brief in a pending FDCPA case to defend a “good‑faith” litigation standard and push back against interpretations that would impose strict liability for unintentional violations, reinforcing the importance of intent and reasonableness in debt collection litigation. For Credit and Collection News readers, the brief highlights an important inflection point in how courts treat collector conduct, compliance defenses, and the boundary between bona fide error and actionable abuse under the FDCPA.

Background on FDCPA Litigation Standards

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) imposes civil liability for a wide range of conduct, including false or misleading representations, unfair practices, and failure to provide required disclosures in consumer collection. Historically, collectors have relied on defenses such as the statute’s “bona fide error” provision, which allows avoidance of liability where a violation was unintentional and occurred despite procedures reasonably adapted to avoid such errors.

In 2010, the Supreme Court’s decision in $Jermanv.Carlisle$ narrowed that defense, holding that the bona fide error provision does not cover mistakes of law, even when a collector acts in good faith and relies on legal counsel. As a result, collectors face heightened exposure for legal misinterpretations, and litigation has increasingly tested how much room, if any, remains for good‑faith reliance and reasonable compliance systems to mitigate liability.

ACA International’s Interest in the Case

ACA International is the leading trade association for the debt collection industry, representing hundreds of agencies, creditors, and affiliated service providers engaged in consumer and commercial collections. The organization regularly participates in litigation and rulemaking affecting FDCPA standards, including filing comments in the CFPB’s Regulation F rulemaking and submitting amicus briefs in significant appellate and Supreme Court cases.

In this latest FDCPA matter, ACA’s amicus brief focuses specifically on preserving a “good‑faith” litigation standard, arguing that courts should distinguish between intentional misconduct aimed at deceiving or abusing consumers and inadvertent, technical, or good‑faith errors arising in complex compliance environments. ACA warns that eroding this distinction would effectively convert the FDCPA into a strict‑liability regime for many litigation‑related practices, discouraging legitimate collection lawsuits and increasing costs for compliant agencies.

The Good‑Faith Litigation Standard at Issue

The “good‑faith” litigation standard refers to judicial and statutory doctrines that treat lawsuits, pleadings, and enforcement activity as actionable under FDCPA only when they involve false statements, misrepresentations, or unfair practices that a collector knew or should have known were improper. Under this framework, collectors can defend against liability by showing they acted with reasonable care, relied on established procedures or legal advice, and did not intend to mislead or harm consumers.

ACA’s brief contends that some recent FDCPA decisions, influenced by the narrowing of the bona fide error defense and aggressive enforcement theories, have moved away from this good‑faith approach, treating even honest mistakes or ambiguous legal questions as violations. ACA urges the court in the present case to reaffirm that FDCPA liability for litigation‑related conduct should hinge on materiality, intent, and objective reasonableness, rather than punishing collectors for every technical misstep in pleadings or filings.

Relationship to CFPB and Consumer Amicus Positions

In parallel FDCPA litigation, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has filed amicus briefs arguing for robust, consumer‑protective interpretations of §1692e, emphasizing that the prohibition on false, deceptive, or misleading representations applies even to unintentional and unknowing misstatements by debt collectors. The CFPB’s position is grounded in statutory text that lacks any explicit scienter requirement and in appellate precedent holding that intent is not a prerequisite for liability under §1692e.

ACA’s amicus brief in the current case effectively pushes in the opposite direction, calling on courts to recognize that, while FDCPA is remedial, it should not penalize collectors who act in good faith and with robust compliance controls when litigating debts. This tension between consumer‑side and industry‑side amicus positions frames the case as a broader battleground over whether FDCPA litigation will be governed by strict liability principles or by a more nuanced standard that accounts for intent and reasonable error.

Practical Implications for Debt Collectors

For collection agencies and law firms, weakening the good‑faith litigation standard raises immediate risk in everyday practices such as filing complaints, submitting affidavits, and verifying balances and ownership of debts. Even minor discrepancies in data, timing, or legal classification, if deemed “false” or “misleading,” could expose collectors to FDCPA suits and class actions, regardless of how carefully they attempted to comply.

ACA’s brief underscores the need for agencies to strengthen compliance programs—documenting procedures to prevent errors, validating data sources, and maintaining clear escalation paths for legal questions—while also seeking a legal framework that recognizes these efforts. If the court adopts ACA’s view, collectors could have more meaningful defenses based on good‑faith conduct and reasonable reliance on established processes; if not, agencies may face increased litigation exposure and pressure to limit or restructure their use of lawsuits in collection strategy.

Impact on Consumers and the Credit Ecosystem

From the consumer perspective, rigorous FDCPA standards and reduced room for “honest mistakes” can expand remedies against abusive or sloppy litigation practices, especially in cases involving faulty documentation or misidentification of debtors. However, ACA argues that overly rigid rules could also reduce access to credit and raise borrowing costs if lenders and collectors respond by tightening underwriting, increasing pricing, or exiting certain markets to avoid litigation risk.

The outcome of this amicus‑supported case will therefore influence not only litigation risk in the collection space but also the broader balance between consumer protection and the efficient functioning of credit markets. For industry stakeholders, following this case is critical to anticipating how courts may treat defenses grounded in good‑faith reliance on compliance procedures and legal advice going forward.

Takeaways for Credit and Collection News Readers

For compliance officers, in‑house counsel, and agency executives, ACA International’s amicus filing signals that the trade association is actively engaged in shaping how courts interpret litigation conduct under the FDCPA, particularly around intent, bona fide error, and materiality. Readers should monitor the case’s progress and accompanying commentary from both ACA and consumer advocates to understand evolving expectations for documentation, affidavit execution, and legal review in collection lawsuits.

As you develop policies and training, treat this case as a prompt to reassess how your organization documents “good‑faith” efforts—written procedures, audit trails, legal review sign‑offs, and error‑correction mechanisms—so those efforts may be more persuasive if courts continue to scrutinize collector litigation activity. If you’d like, I can help you turn this into a tighter, publication‑ready piece with a headline, subhead, and sidebars tailored to Credit and Collection News’ style—would you prefer a more neutral news tone or a compliance‑analysis angle for your readers?