Quick analysis: March litigation against debt collectors built on a growth trend from the previous month, with all three statutes increasing their month-over-month numbers (FDCPA +3.9%, TCPA +15.5% and FCRA +3.3%) and, except for TCPA, year-over-year (FDCPA +3.2%, TCPA -9.2% and FCRA +6.8%).

Year to date, FDCPA is up 11.9% and FCRA is up 13.8%. TCPA is still a bit down from this time last year, though the difference has narrowed quite a bit over the last month (down 7.4% YTD from 39.9% YTD the previous month) and it appears at this rate TCPA numbers will surge ahead of YTD comps in the next month or two.

Class actions were strong for all three statutes (FDCPA 18.7%, TCPA 11.6% and FCRA +13.8%). Repeat filers represented about 30% of all March litigation.

On to CFPB complaints against debt collectors. As of publication, 3865 complaints were filed against 911 different debt collectors in March. That is up 12.6% over February and 7.2% over the same period last year. These numbers will likely continue to edge up as more complaints go public.

Fun fact: We surpassed 10,000 CFPB complaints against debt collectors YTD on March 26, 2015, versus hitting that milestone on March 28 last year.

Comparisons: Current Period: Previous Period: Previous Year Comp:
Mar 01 – 31, 2015 Feb 01 – 28, 2015 Mar 01 – 31, 2014
CFPB Complaints  3865 3431 12.6% 3607 7.2%
FDCPA lawsuits  927 892 3.9% 898 3.2%
FCRA lawsuits  253 245 3.3% 237 6.8%
TCPA lawsuits  216 187 15.5% 238 -9.2%
YTD CFPB Complaints  10578 10263 3.1%
YTD FDCPA lawsuits  2707 2419 11.9%
YTD FCRA lawsuits  708 622 13.8%
YTD TCPA lawsuits  630 680 -7.4%

Complaint Statistics:

3865 consumers filed CFPB complaints against debt collectors and about 1272 consumers filed lawsuits under consumer statutes in Mar 2015. Here is an approximate breakdown:

  • 3865 CFPB Complaints
  • 927 FDCPA, 173 Class Action (18.7%)
  • 216 TCPA, 25 Class Action (11.6%)
  • 253 FCRA, 35 Class Action (13.8%)

Litigation Summary (scroll down for CFPB data):

  • Of those cases, there were about 1272 unique plaintiffs (including multiple plaintiffs in one suit).
  • Of those plaintiffs, about 378, or (30%), had sued under consumer statutes before.
  • Combined, those plaintiffs have filed about 1476 lawsuits since 2001
  • Actions were filed in 168 different US District Court branches.
  • About 1029 different collection firms and creditors were sued.

The top courts where lawsuits were filed:

  • 88 Lawsuits: New York Eastern District Court – Brooklyn
  • 86 Lawsuits: Illinois Northern District Court – Chicago
  • 41 Lawsuits: California Central District Court – Los Angeles
  • 37 Lawsuits: Florida Middle District Court – Tampa
  • 32 Lawsuits: Pennsylvania Eastern District Court – Philadelphia
  • 29 Lawsuits: Missouri Eastern District Court – St. Louis – Eastern Division
  • 29 Lawsuits: Michigan Eastern District Court – Detroit
  • 28 Lawsuits: Nevada District Court – Las Vegas
  • 25 Lawsuits: New Jersey District Court – Newark
  • 25 Lawsuits: California Southern District Court – San Diego

The most active consumer attorneys were:

  • Representing 34 Consumers: ADAM JON FISHBEIN
  • Representing 25 Consumers: SERGEI LEMBERG
  • Representing 21 Consumers: RICHARD A VOYTAS JR
  • Representing 19 Consumers: DAVID H KRIEGER
  • Representing 19 Consumers: TODD M FRIEDMAN
  • Representing 18 Consumers: DANIEL JOHN MCGARRY
  • Representing 18 Consumers: AHMAD TAYSEER SULAIMAN
  • Representing 17 Consumers: DANNY HOREN
  • Representing 16 Consumers: DANIEL A EDELMAN
  • Representing 16 Consumers: SHIREEN HORMOZDI

Statistics Year to Date:

3519 total lawsuits for 2015, including:

  • 2707 FDCPA
  • 708 FCRA
  • 630 TCPA

Number of Unique Plaintiffs for 2015: 3509 (including multiple plaintiffs in one suit)

The most active consumer attorneys of the year:

  • Representing 94 Consumers: SERGEI LEMBERG
  • Representing 71 Consumers: ADAM JON FISHBEIN
  • Representing 59 Consumers: DANIEL A EDELMAN
  • Representing 56 Consumers: TODD M FRIEDMAN
  • Representing 52 Consumers: CATHLEEN M COMBS
  • Representing 52 Consumers: JAMES O LATTURNER
  • Representing 51 Consumers: DAVID H KRIEGER
  • Representing 41 Consumers: DANNY HOREN
  • Representing 39 Consumers: MARK A ELDRIDGE
  • Representing 39 Consumers: SHPETIM ADEMI


CFPB Complaint Statistics:

There were 3865 complaints filed against debt collectors in Mar 2015.

Total number of debt collectors complained about: 911

The types of debt behind the complaints were:

  • 1188 Other (phone, health club, etc.) (31%)
  • 894 Unknown (23%)
  • 675 Credit card (17%)
  • 495 Medical (13%)
  • 244 Payday loan (6%)
  • 113 Mortgage (3%)
  • 105 Auto (3%)
  • 81 Non-federal student loan (2%)
  • 70 Federal student loan (2%)

Here is a breakdown of complaints:

  • 1704 Cont’d attempts collect debt not owed (44%)
  • 713 Communication tactics (18%)
  • 645 Disclosure verification of debt (17%)
  • 335 False statements or representation (9%)
  • 241 Taking/threatening an illegal action (6%)
  • 227 Improper contact or sharing of info (6%)

The top five subissues were:

  • 1086 Debt is not mine (28%)
  • 440 Not given enough info to verify debt (11%)
  • 428 Debt was paid (11%)
  • 416 Frequent or repeated calls (11%)
  • 264 Attempted to collect wrong amount (7%)

The top states complaints were filed from are:

  • 506 Complaints: CA
  • 369 Complaints: TX
  • 361 Complaints: FL
  • 215 Complaints: NY
  • 190 Complaints: GA
  • 150 Complaints: OH
  • 133 Complaints: IL
  • 130 Complaints: PA
  • 122 Complaints: NJ
  • 116 Complaints: MD

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

  • 2566 Closed with explanation (66%)
  • 670 Closed with non-monetary relief (17%)
  • 236 In progress (6%)
  • 203 Closed (5%)
  • 157 Untimely response (4%)
  • 33 Closed with monetary relief (1%)

This includes 3580 (93%) timely responses to complaints, and 285 (7%) untimely responses.

Of the company responses, consumers accepted 0 (%) of them, disputed 381 (10%) of them, and 3484 (90%) were N\A.

The top five days for complaints were:

  • 194 Complaints: Mon, 03/23/2015
  • 192 Complaints: Tue, 03/24/2015
  • 183 Complaints: Thu, 03/26/2015
  • 180 Complaints: Mon, 03/02/2015
  • 170 Complaints: Tue, 03/10/2015

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.