Is an entity a creditor under FDCPA if they are not owed a debt, and should the test for 'name other than his own' follow the FTC's opinion or the statute's text?

This is a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case concerning a debt that is invalid and was collected under a false name, two practices expressly forbidden by the Act. The Appellate Division held that defendant is a creditor under the Act s definition despite the fact that no debt is owed, an erroneous interpretation that has been rejected by the Sixth Circuit. They further held that defendant is not using a 'name other than his own', contradicting the record, using a test derived from FTC opinion, splitting from the Sixth and Seventh Circuits, who reject the FTC ’s authority over the Act, and various other courts whose tests conform to statute. Congress expressly forbade the FTC from regulating the Act. Lastly, the court applied a version of FDCPA's 'principal purpose' test that depends on an unsupportable reading of the statute. In Henson v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 810 (2017), this Court decided 'who qualifies as a debt collector' with respect to prong two of the Act's debt collector definition. This case offers the chance to do the same for prong one. The questions presented are: 1. Is an entity a creditor under FDCPA if they are not owed a debt? 2. Should the test for the 'name other than his own' exception follow the FTC's non-authoritative opinion, or the text of the statute? 3. Does 'business' in the FDCPA's definition of debt collector mean 'commercial enterprise ’ despite the inherent surplusage? If not, how does the 'principal purpose' test change.