Editing Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (section)

===By the credit industry===
Conversely, many in the credit industry and some courts have taken the stance that the FDCPA has often been used to file frivolous lawsuits and seek damages for minor technical violations and has, at times, seriously impeded their ability to collect valid debts.<ref>{{cite web|title=Courts, Congress send mixed messages to debt collectors|url=http://www.nh.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070720/BUSINESSREVIEW05/70718029|website=New Hampshire Business Review|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090214024034/http://www.nh.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20070720%2FBUSINESSREVIEW05%2F70718029|archive-date=14 February 2009|date=20 July 2007|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=O'Connor v. Check Rite, Ltd., 973 F.Supp. 1010 (D. Colo. 1997)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14892481683081390004|website=Google Scholar|access-date=16 June 2017}} (awarding plaintiff statutory damages of only $0.01, and then finding plaintiff liable for a defendant’s attorneys’ fees and costs because of the plaintiff’s lack of discretion in filing the action)</ref> Given the strict liability nature of the FDCPA, the collections industry and the insurance companies that provide liability coverage for them have repeatedly lobbied Congress to relax provisions of the law to reduce their civil exposure for these "hyper-technical" violations.<ref>''Bailey v. Security Nat. Servicing Corp.,'' 154 F.3d 384 (C.A.7 (Ill.), 1998); ''Carroll v. Wolpoff & Abramson'', 53 F.3d 626 (C.A.4 (Md.), 1995)</ref>

The [[accounts receivable]] management industry has also raised concerns that the FDCPA contains contradictions that often lead to liability on the part of collection agencies in civil cases, especially when dealing with technology that did not exist when the law was written. For example, the FDCPA requires a [[collection agency]] to identify itself as such in any communication with a consumer. At the same time, a collection agency cannot disclose the debt of a consumer to anyone else. These two requirements are at odds when a collector leaves a message on an answering machine or voicemail system. If the collector identifies himself and his company, a third party could hear the message, thus resulting in a third party disclosure violation. Case law has tackled this issue but has not yet resolved it.<ref>{{cite journal | title=Legal Ruling Further Muddies Waters on Third-Party Disclosure vs. Mini-Miranda | website=insideARM.com |date=Dec 12, 2008 | url=http://www.insidearm.com/daily/debt-collection-news/debt-collection/legal-ruling-further-muddies-waters-on-third-party-disclosure-vs-mini-miranda|access-date=2010-08-11}}</ref>