Whether a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is sufficient for Article III standing, or if additional injury must be alleged

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Congress enacted the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to protect individuals against debt collectors’ abusive and deceptive tactics. With eighty percent of Americans in debt, and conditions only worsening with the pandemic-induced recession, few statutes have more relevance to the average American. Yet five years after Spokeo v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540 (2016), the circuits are almost evenly split on what a plaintiff must allege under the Act to satisfy Article III standing’s concrete-injury requirement. The questions presented are: 1. Whether, under Spokeo, it is sufficient for standing simply to allege a violation of the procedural rights created by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, as six circuits have held, or must a plaintiff also always allege an additional injury beyond such a violation, as five circuits (including the Seventh in this case) have held? 2. If some additional injury is required for standing under the Act, is it sufficient to allege mental distress or lost time dealing with a violation of the Act, as the Fourth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits have held, or is something more than mental distress or lost time required, as the Seventh (in this case) and Ninth Circuits have held?