1. Although this is an enforcement action against Pressler by the CFPB, do individuals who have been victimized by Pressler have any legal recourse? 

2. Why is it relevant that actual attorneys generally spent less than a few minutes, sometimes less than 30 seconds, reviewing each case before initiating a lawsuit?

3. Have you, a family member, or a friend ever been contacted by a debt collector? Did the collection agent use intimidation tactics? Did it violate the FDCPA?

Pressler & Pressler, LLP (Pressler) is a law firm whose practice was entirely devoted to debt-collection, primarily in New Jersey
and New York. In response to numerous complaints from consumers concerning Pressler’s violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) investigated the practices of Pressler. The investigation revealed multiple instances of debt-collection efforts in which Pressler employees violated the “False or Unsubstantiated Representations about Owing a Debt” section of the FCRA. The CFPB found that Pressler had represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that consumers owed debts to various clients with certain unpaid balances, interest rates, and payment due dates, which were not substantiated by documentation from creditors or were simply false. The investiga-tion also found that from 2009 to 2014, the law firm filed more than 500,000 lawsuits against consumers on behalf of clients who sought payment for debts they purchased from various creditors. This massive litigation mill was powered through an automated claim-preparation system and nonattorney support staff determined which consumers to sue. Actual attorneys generally spent less than a few minutes, sometimes less than 30 seconds, reviewing each case before initiating a lawsuit.

In 2016, the CFPB announced that it had entered into a Consent Order with Pressler whereby Pressler, and its two principal partners—Sheldon Pressler and Gerard Felt—agreed to a civil fine of $1 million. The parties also agreed to halt the practice that caused the filing of inaccurate mass-produced lawsuits tar-geting consumers in debt in violation of both the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which prohibits unfair and deceptive acts or practices in the consumer financial marketplace.

“In numerous instances the representations set forth in [the CFPB Complaint] were not substantiated at the time the representa-tions were made, including but not limited to where consumers disputed, challenged, or questioned the validity or accuracy of the debt and [Pressler] failed to obtain [documentation from the creditor] before continuing collecting on that account. [Pressler] had knowledge or reason to believe, based on its past course of dealing with its clients’ accounts (includ-ing factors such as consumer disputes, inaccurate or incomplete information in the portfolio, and con-tractual disclaimers related to the accounts) that a specific portfolio of clients’ accounts might contain unreliable data, but continued to represent that con-sumers owed the claimed amount on the accounts in question without reviewing [documentation] .  .  . [Pressler] have unfairly collected or attempted to col-lect a debt by in many instances relying exclusively on summary data provided by clients without hav-ing reviewed supporting documentation underlying the facts [Pressler] asserts  .  .  . These practices are likely to cause substantial injury to consumers, for example, by imposing costs in defending improperly filed or outright erroneous lawsuits. These injuries are not reasonably avoidable by consumers because, among other things, when a consumer is sued, he or she must defend or otherwise respond to the lawsuit, or else face a default judgment.”