Quick analysis: The summer heat must be rekindling those warm old memories of litigiousness, because June saw uncharacteristically strong consumer litigation activity across all three primary statutes: FDCPA, FCRA and TCPA. All three had a big month, with double-digit increases over their performance in May.

Year to date FDCPA suits are roaring back from a four-year lull, with growth not seen since 2011. It is up 16% over this time last year, and shows no imminent signs of slowing down.

FCRA is up 22.7% over this time last year, which itself was a record year.

TCPA is still down over last year (continuing a trend for TCPA in 2015), but by a much smaller margin than last month. It cut the YTD decline almost in half from 9.2% to 5.1% due to a very strong June (up 64.9% over May). If it keeps this momentum, it will surely come out ahead for the year again in July or August.

CFPB complaints against debt collectors are also up YTD over 2014, but by the slimmest of margins – .5%.

Interestingly, CFPB complaints are up significantly over last month, which is not inherently unusual, but it is unusual to see it this early. It often takes CFPB complaints another few weeks of trickling out before they overtake the previous month.

Fun Facts:
∙ For June 2015, about 36% of all consumer litigation plaintiffs had sued at least once before under consumer litigation statutes.
∙ About 817 different companies were sued.
∙ Class actions were relatively high, with 12.9% for FDCPA, 14.1% for TCPA and 11.1% for FCRA.
∙ The Illinois Northern District Court of Chicago had the most litigation filed in it, with 91 lawsuits invoking consumer statutes.
∙ Attorney Craig B. Sanders represented the most consumers for the month – 59.

201506_stats

Complaint Statistics:

3359 consumers filed CFPB complaints against debt collectors and about 1326 consumers filed lawsuits under consumer statutes from Jun 01, 2015 to Jun 30, 2015. Here is an approximate breakdown:

  • 3359 CFPB Complaints
  • 1129 FDCPA, 146 Class Action (12.9%)
  • 249 TCPA, 35 Class Action (14.1%)
  • 298 FCRA, 33 Class Action (11.1%)

Litigation Summary (scroll down for CFPB data):

  • Of those cases, there were about 1326 unique plaintiffs (including multiple plaintiffs in one suit).
  • Of those plaintiffs, about 471, or (36%), had sued under consumer statutes before.
  • Combined, those plaintiffs have filed about 1720 lawsuits since 2001
  • Actions were filed in 159 different US District Court branches.
  • About 817 different collection firms and creditors were sued.

The top courts where lawsuits were filed:

  • 91 Lawsuits: Illinois Northern District Court – Chicago
  • 64 Lawsuits: Pennsylvania Eastern District Court – Philadelphia
  • 54 Lawsuits: New York Eastern District Court – Central Islip
  • 52 Lawsuits: California Central District Court – Los Angeles
  • 45 Lawsuits: New York Eastern District Court – Brooklyn
  • 38 Lawsuits: Minnesota District Court – Dmn
  • 37 Lawsuits: Florida Middle District Court – Tampa
  • 37 Lawsuits: Georgia Northern District Court – Atlanta
  • 29 Lawsuits: Colorado District Court – Denver
  • 27 Lawsuits: Arizona District Court – Phoenix

The most active consumer attorneys were:

  • Representing 59 Consumers: CRAIG B SANDERS
  • Representing 30 Consumers: CRAIG THOR KIMMEL
  • Representing 28 Consumers: MEGAN A KERRIGAN
  • Representing 27 Consumers: TODD M FRIEDMAN
  • Representing 26 Consumers: AMY LYNN BENNECOFF GINSBURG
  • Representing 22 Consumers: MOHAMMED OMAR BADWAN
  • Representing 19 Consumers: DAVID M BARSHAY
  • Representing 18 Consumers: JOHN D BLYTHIN
  • Representing 17 Consumers: SHPETIM ADEMI
  • Representing 17 Consumers: DAVID J PHILIPPS

Statistics Year to Date:
7261 total lawsuits for 2015, including:

  • 5823 FDCPA
  • 1514 FCRA
  • 1318 TCPA

Number of Unique Plaintiffs for 2015: 6917 (including multiple plaintiffs in one suit)

The most active consumer attorneys of the year:

  • Representing 152 Consumers: CRAIG B SANDERS
  • Representing 119 Consumers: SERGEI LEMBERG
  • Representing 118 Consumers: TODD M FRIEDMAN
  • Representing 106 Consumers: AMY LYNN BENNECOFF GINSBURG
  • Representing 93 Consumers: DAVID H KRIEGER
  • Representing 92 Consumers: ADAM JON FISHBEIN
  • Representing 91 Consumers: MARK A ELDRIDGE
  • Representing 91 Consumers: JOHN D BLYTHIN
  • Representing 90 Consumers: DANIEL A EDELMAN
  • Representing 87 Consumers: SHPETIM ADEMI

——————————————————————————————————-
CFPB Complaint Statistics:

There were 3359 complaints filed against debt collectors from Jun 01, 2015 to Jun 30, 2015.

Total number of debt collectors complained about: 820

The types of debt behind the complaints were:

  • 1002 Other (phone, health club, etc.) (30%)
  • 746 Unknown (22%)
  • 672 Credit card (20%)
  • 524 Medical (16%)
  • 153 Payday loan (5%)
  • 83 Mortgage (2%)
  • 81 Auto (2%)
  • 51 Federal student loan (2%)
  • 47 Non-federal student loan (1%)

Here is a breakdown of complaints:

  • 1379 Cont’d attempts collect debt not owed (41%)
  • 666 Disclosure verification of debt (20%)
  • 548 Communication tactics (16%)
  • 280 False statements or representation (8%)
  • 253 Improper contact or sharing of info (8%)
  • 233 Taking/threatening an illegal action (7%)

The top five subissues were:

  • 887 Debt is not mine (26%)
  • 462 Not given enough info to verify debt (14%)
  • 350 Debt was paid (10%)
  • 340 Frequent or repeated calls (10%)
  • 225 Attempted to collect wrong amount (7%)

The top states complaints were filed from are:

  • 461 Complaints: CA
  • 376 Complaints: TX
  • 357 Complaints: FL
  • 214 Complaints: NY
  • 141 Complaints: IL
  • 130 Complaints: GA
  • 110 Complaints: PA
  • 108 Complaints: VA
  • 102 Complaints: OH
  • 100 Complaints: NJ

The status of the month’s complaints are as follows:

  • 1989 (59%)
  • 902 Closed with explanation (27%)
  • 213 Closed with non-monetary relief (6%)
  • 136 In progress (4%)
  • 70 Closed (2%)
  • 39 Untimely response (1%)
  • 10 Closed with monetary relief (%)

This includes 3103 (92%) timely responses to complaints, and 256 (8%) untimely responses.

Of the company responses, consumers accepted 0 (%) of them, disputed 522 (16%) of them, and 2837 (84%) were N\A.

The top five days for complaints were:

  • 175 Complaints: Tue, 06/16/2015
  • 172 Complaints: Tue, 06/09/2015
  • 169 Complaints: Wed, 06/10/2015
  • 164 Complaints: Wed, 06/24/2015
  • 159 Complaints: Thu, 06/11/2015

API Access


We offer two powerful APIs to businesses that communicate with consumers:

  • The primary Litigious Consumer Scrub uses a combination of name, geography (and optionally SSN) to identify consumers who have filed lawsuits in the past.
  • The Litigious Consumer Phone Scrub pulls every phone number from our proprietary database of litigants and runs your phones against ours.

These APIs allow you to check your data against our database on the fly. Clients love using this to handle risk management without missing a beat in their daily workflow.

Workers Comp Scrub


Workers Comp-inspired FDCPA lawsuits are growing aggressively, particularly in Florida. Only WebRecon can tell you who in your database may have a Florida Worker’s Comp case filed that could trigger litigation against you.

You can’t stop 100% of all lawsuits, but if you collect medical in Florida and you don’t have a process in place to show the court that you have a way to check every file against the Workers Comp database, then you have lost the case before it even begins.

Knock these suits out of the park with the Workers Comp Scrub.

Our Monthly Client Newsletter with The Litigant Hotsheet


Anyone can get our guest newsletter, but only clients get the version with the Litigant Hotsheet –  identifying the most active consumer Plaintiffs filing suit in jurisdictions around the country each month. Grab a coffee, shut your door and open your database to make sure you are doing all you can to stay safe.

Individual Vendor Consumer Complaint Search


Just like Vendor Monitoring, but without the monitoring. Search any business’s history of consumer complaints (Litigation, CFPB, BBB, State AG) with the click of a button! Great for on-the-fly gut checks of the companies you do business with.

Vendor Monitoring


Through vicarious liability, you can be held accountable for the bad behavior of your vendors. If they abuse consumers, for all intents and purposes, so do you. This is a big freakin’ deal!

But fear not, friend. WebRecon can track consumer litigation, CFPB, BBB and State AG Office complaints against the companies you do business with.

When a new complaint of any kind is filed against any of the companies you are monitoring, we’ll automatically push a report out to you with all of the publicly available details so you can react accordingly and if necessary, protect your interests.

The Litigious Consumer Phone Scrub


Would you knowingly dial a number attached to a consumer with a history of litigation? Of course not.

But thousands of companies do just that, every single day. If you’d like to know who they are, simply review the court dockets. They are the ones getting sued the most.

Sure, you can stop dialing consumers. But your marketing and operations teams might not be too excited about that plan.

Another idea? Identify the consumers most likely to sue you, based on previous litigation histories, and just don’t call them.

Identify high-risk phones quickly & easily, before you expose yourself to unnecessary risk.

Litigation Context Search


This is really cool.

Our primary search engine is really designed to search for parties to litigation. Need to know more about a consumer plaintiff? That’s easy. Defendant? Check. Lawyer? No problem.

But if you need to find all 1099C lawsuits filed in July 2020… not so much.

Which is why we developed the Context Search. We have pulled out and indexed the full text from over 140k consumer lawsuits and made them available to you in a search engine, with more than 1000 new lawsuits added each month. Use it to search the text of filed litigation so you can easily identify those hard-to-define trends and cases worth following.

Individual Search Engine


Instantly and easily search our proprietary database for any lawsuit participant – Plaintiff, Defendant or Attorney.

In the results, we’ll show you the full consumer litigation history of any participant, including the “docket data” (who, what, why, where, when) and – in many cases – we can even provide a copy of their actual filed lawsuits.

You can also search by phone, date range, federal/state, class action, court, statute, etc. We offer a ton of flexibility to get you the exact search result you are looking for.

The Litigant Alert Ongoing Monitoring Process


Just like our one-time batch process, but without the whole “one time” thing.

When one of your consumers files new litigation against anyone in the future, you should be the first to know. Our monitoring service can make that happen.

WebRecon can monitor your entire database (or any segment of it) for future instances of consumer litigation filed by the very consumers you are working with, right now!

It is simple to add new consumers to the watchlist, remove inactive accounts, download full reports, etc.

Best of all, we only charge you for the volume of your monitoring database – not the frequency of the searches. Search daily, weekly, every Tuesday and Friday, the 15th of each month, whatever – it is totally up to you! You won’t pay a penny more.

The Litigant Alert One-Time Batch Process


This is our flagship service. Find out why hundreds of companies won’t contact any consumers before running them through WebRecon’s Litigant Alert.

This process identifies consumers with a history of litigation quickly & easily. If they have ever filed lawsuits under FDCPA, TCPA, FCRA or similar statutes, you’ll find out here. 

WebRecon’s proprietary database is simply the most comprehensive collection of dangerous consumer litigation data in existence. 

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.