Source: site

Key Details of the Holding
-
The court clarified that debt collectors must do more than merely rely on a creditor’s representations; they must demonstrate active procedures to prevent violations.​
-
If the debt collector undertook steps such as sending validation letters, not receiving disputes, and obtaining affidavits verifying debts, such behavior may help prove procedures reasonably adapted to avoid FDCPA violations.​
-
The court examined whether the debt collector’s procedures were adequate to prevent similar errors, not just to correct mistakes after they occur.​
Recent Case Examples
-
In one Ninth Circuit case, the panel specifically stated that even if the debt collector violated the FDCPA, the bona fide error defense applied due to robust preventive measures taken by the collector.​
-
The courts have allowed mistakes about a debt’s statute of limitations status under state law to qualify for the bona fide error defense, making a distinction between mistakes of fact or application of law versus mistakes in interpreting the FDCPA itself.​
Requirements for Defense Success
-
The defense does not apply if the debt collector’s error is purely a mistake in interpreting the FDCPA, but it may apply to errors concerning other laws or facts (such as the time-barred status of debts).​
-
Collectors must show effective procedures that are designed to prevent foreseeable errors, not just to check for mistakes after the fact.​
In summary, the Ninth Circuit endorses the bona fide error defense in FDCPA lawsuits if the collector acts unintentionally, makes an honest error, and has well-adapted procedures in place to prevent such errors before they happen.​




