Show damages when building your FDCPA case Part 2
- Peter Schneider
- Oct 20
- 4 min read
A few weeks ago I blogged about how debt collectors often violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because courts don't care if illegal collection practices cost you worry and wasted time if you can't show "damages" they do care about.
I gave a list of actions you might take to demonstrate the "concrete" damages they are looking for, and today's court opinion demonstrates the wisdom of it. The case is Davis v. Nationwide Capital Servs., LLC, No. 24-cv-2391-EFM-GEB, 2025 LX 497448 (D. Kan. Oct. 16, 2025) in Kansas federal court.
Taken from the opinion, Ms. Davis got behind on payments and one of those debts was sold to debt collector Nationwide Capital Services. NCS attempted to collect the debt via placing derogatory information on her credit report, and by having another debt collector, Rockland Resources, mail her a dunning letter.
Ms. Davis disputed the correctness of this particular debt in a letter to NCS, but NCS did not report the disputed nature of the debt to TransUnion. This prompted Ms. Davis to ask her lawyer to send another letter to NCS reminding them that the debt was disputed and to stop reporting it incorrectly.
Ms. Davis then followed up with a lawsuit alleging violations of the FDCPA by failing to report that a disputed debt is disputed; and (2) 15 U.S.C. § 1692f, unfair or unconscionable collection actions.
NCS moved to dismiss the lawsuit arguing that Ms. Davis hadn't suffered a concrete injury and she lacked standing to bring a claim.
Defendant contends that Plaintiff fails to allege an injury in fact and thus does not have standing to bring her claims. Article III standing is a threshold question central to the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. To establish Article III standing, a "plaintiff must have (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision." The plaintiff bears the burden of showing that Article III standing exists.
Generally the federal courts look for tangible harms (physical injury or financial) but some intangible harms can keep you inside the courthouse:
To determine "whether an intangible harm is sufficiently concrete to constitute an injury in fact, [the court] look[s] to both history and to the judgment of Congress." Some intangible harms include "reputational harms, disclosure of private information, and intrusion upon seclusion."
If at all posible you want to come to court with tangible harms, and Ms. Davis alleged that NCS's failure to report the debt as disputed forced her to take the time, effort, and expense of having her attorneys send Defendant another letter.
The Court will only address Plaintiff's tangible injuries at this time as Plaintiff's allegations are sufficient for standing. Several circuits have determined that allegations of extra time, effort, and expense sufficiently allege a tangible injury in fact to satisfy Article III standing. In Ebaugh v. Medicredit, the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's conclusion that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring her FDCPA claim. It stated that the plaintiff "clearly alleged facts demonstrating that she suffered a concrete injury when she purchased postage and an envelope to send [Defendant's] improper communication to her counsel, an act that was caused by the FDCPA violation and that was necessary to allow reassertion of [the plaintiff's] right not to be contacted directly while represented by counsel." In addition, in Mack v. Resurgent Capital Services, the Seventh Circuit considered a claim brought under § 1692g(a) of the FDCPA and stated that in applying the plausibility standard under Twombly, "it is reasonable to infer that [the plaintiff] redisputed the debt, and in doing so suffered a concrete injury at least in the form of postage paid to send the second validation request." Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit determined that the time and money spent by the plaintiff on a second letter to the defendant was a tangible concrete injury in fact sufficient to confer standing upon the plaintiff.
Because Plaintiff alleges that she spent additional time, effort, and expense informing Defendant (a second time) that her debt was disputed, she alleges a tangible injury.
But for that second letter, Ms. Davis probably would probably have been dismissed out of court, and it illustrates that the wise FDCPA plaintiff takes steps to demonstrate concrete tangible harm.
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