How will courts apply a statute to a business that did not exist when the law was written, if the statutory language does not clearly supply the answer one way or the other? The Supreme Court faced that question at oral argument on April 18 in Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., the second case this term involving the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, or FDCPA, according to a special analysis today by Bill Rochelle. Although predicting the outcome is difficult based on questions from the bench, comments by the justices suggest that consumers may be headed for a second loss of protections from debt collectors in some circumstances. In Midland Funding LLC v. Johnson, argued in January, a majority of justices seemed inclined to find no violation of the FDCPA when a debt collector files a proof of claim in a bankruptcy case based on a debt where collection is barred by the statute of limitations. That decision is still pending. In Henson, the case argued on April 18, the Supreme Court will decide whether the FDCPA applies to someone who buys consumer receivables originated by someone else.
