Show damages when building your FDCPA case
- Peter Schneider
- Oct 6
- 5 min read
Updated: Oct 20
The Fair Debt Collection Practices act is intended to prevent deceptive or abusive collection practices. In theory debt collectors who violate the FDCPA are subject to a $1,000 penalty to discourage dishonest debt collection practices. However the courts are generally anti-consumer and this case will demonstrate why a debt collector breaks the law in demanding money not owed is not enough to successfully hold them accountable, you need to demonstrate "concrete" damages.
The case is Bachiri v. Medicredit, Inc. , Md. NOW Med. Ctrs., Inc., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 25645, 2025 LX 403393. I am taking the facts as they are given in the opinion.
A Mr. Bachiri got a wound requiring stitches which he had done at a MD Now urgent care clinic. Some weeks later he returned to have the stitches removed, prepaid for the service, and waited for two hours. After the two hour wait he decided to have them removed somewhere else, got a refund, and left.
"Much to [Bachiri's] surprise," MD Now re-billed him for the unperformed service, sent his bill to collections, "and attempted on multiple occasions to collect $202.88 from him." After Bachiri unsuccessfully attempted to alert MD Now to their error, MD Now hired a debt collector, Medicredit, who sent Bachiri additional collection letters. Bachiri asserted that his attempts to resolve this billing error "resulted in both wasted time and frustration," including the time he required to "consult[] with an attorney to learn his legal rights." He also contended that he "suffered emotional distress over being in collections for a debt that [wa]s not owed, which . . . resulted in frustration, stress, anxiety, surprise, shock and[,] embarrassment." Bachiri further alleged that he "suffered from the threat of, or actual reporting, of this fictitious collection on one or more of his credit reports."
Most folks are going to see this as a textbook example of abusive collection. The money wasn't owed, Mr. Bachiri pointed it out, and MD Now didn't care and came at him with a debt collector. Mr. Bachiri sued, but because Bachiri's amended complaint did not allege that he "suffered any tangible injuries from receiving" the collection letters, such as the submission of unnecessary payments or negative impacts upon his credit score . . . [i]t concluded that Bachiri's alleged "conjectural harms," i.e., emotional distress and wasted time, were insufficient to satisfy Article III standing.
This is why courts are generally anti-consumer. The law that congress enacted to discourage dishonest debt collection practices didn't help Mr. Bachiri at the trial court level, so he appealed, where the 11ht circuit ruled against him.
Bachiri "need[ed] to plead (and later support) an injury that is concrete, particularized and actual or imminent, rather than conjectural or hypothetical." . . . "A 'concrete' injury must be 'de facto'; that is, it must actually exist." . . . "The most obvious [concrete injuries] are traditional tangible harms, such as physical harms and monetary harms."
This part is fine. We don't want citizens to successfully bring lawsuits for silly nonsense or wild speculation. The problem is the courts use this language against consumers in situations like this.
In alleging his FCCPA and FDCPA claims, Bachiri asserted that he was forced to contact Medicredit and MD Now to correct their billing error, and the time he spent unsuccessfully disputing the collection efforts left him frustrated, stressed, embarrassed, among other things, and with no choice but to contact an attorney. Bachiri maintains on appeal that his "wasted time disputing the debt, wasted time consulting counsel, and emotional distress" are "textbook" Article III injuries sufficient to establish standing at the pleading stage. We disagree. Bachiri's allegations of harm primarily involve his "wasted time" dealing with the error. But Bachiri cannot rely on "self-imposed injur[ies] to satisfy Article III." . . . "There is no historical or common-law analog where the mere existence of inaccurate information, absent dissemination, amounts to concrete injury." . . . Bachiri does not allege that he spent any money disputing the debt, that he responded to the collection letters by making a payment or promising to do so, or that the reporting of this incorrect information harmed his credit score or financial prospects.
The courts generally place $0 on the stress and time involved in companies trying to wrongfully coerce money out of consumers, so as a consumer in this situation you need to play their game and demonstrate a "concrete" injury, and here is where this entire case is really at the feet of Mr. Bachiri's attorney who Mr. Bachiri apparently consulted but didn't apparently advise him on how to bring a strong lawsuit.
Here are ways to demonstrate concrete damages (not all of these might work in your jurisdiction so probably do as many of them as practical):
Mail a letter to the attorney. The cost of the postage stamp is a concrete expense.
Visit the attorney. Document the milage, your gas milage, and the price of gas. That gas is a concrete expense.
Pay to park while visiting the attorney. This is a concrete injury.
Pay some or all of the demand. This is a concrete injury.
If they are reporting on your credit, apply for credit. Get the letter from the lender that you were denied or quoted a higher rate because of the negative credit trade line. This can be much more effective if done after disputing the trade line and the original creditor / collection agency reaffirms the trade line.
Courts generally don't like your FRCPA claim, so you need to tie their hands such that they can't boot you out of court. Always think "what are my damages" in budling your FDCPA case, and make sure you can demonstrate them. And unfortunately Mr. Bachiri probably had no idea his attorney was the wrong person to help him. You may need to know more than your attorney on the FDCPA.
*** Update
See this post demonstrating how mailing a letter was ruled a concrete injury.
Got a Case Like This?
If you’ve had similar problems with telemarketers, debt collectors, or bankruptcy-related harassment, we might feature your story in a future blog post. Email your situation or legal filing to peter@nwdebtresolution.com or nathen@nwdebtresolution.com.
Are telemarketers bothering you in Washington, Oregon, or Montana?
I handle TCPA lawsuits in Washington State and Oregon, and may be able to help.
📞 Call: 206-800-6000 / 971-800-6000
📧 Email: peter@nwdebtresolution.com
Note: The opinions in this blog are mine (Peter Schneider) and do not count as legal advice. If you're thinking of suing over illegal robocalls or Do Not Call list violations, contact me for a legal consultation.
Comments