The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has overturned a summary judgment ruling in favor of a creditor and two debt collectors that were sued in a class action for violating state law in Massachusetts related to how often a consumer can be contacted on the phone by a collector, ruling the plaintiff had standing to sue.
The Background: The plaintiff encountered financial difficulties in late 2017, leading to his gas and electricity being turned off and collectors being hired to recover the unpaid balance. Throughout 2017 and 2018, the plaintiff received numerous calls from these debt collectors, often exceeding the legal limit of two calls per seven-day period as stipulated by Massachusetts law.
- The plaintiff claimed that these incessant calls were particularly distressing as they coincided with the recent death of his son. Although he did not seek medical treatment for his emotional distress, the plaintiff described the calls as “frustrating” and akin to “harassment.” He further alleged that the calls deprived him of the use of his phone and invaded his privacy.
- In October 2018, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit in state court on behalf of himself and a putative class of Massachusetts consumers, asserting that the repeated calls violated the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A. The defendants subsequently removed the case to federal district court and moved for summary judgment in October 2022.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a cognizable injury under chapter 93A.
The Ruling: The Appeals Court found that the District Court judge had erred in interpreting what constitutes a cognizable injury under chapter 93A.The court held that the plaintiff had indeed alleged cognizable injuries, both in terms of invasion of privacy and emotional distress. The court emphasized that under Massachusetts law, the mere receipt of unwanted debt collection calls can constitute a privacy-related injury, even if the calls did not severely disrupt the plaintiff’s daily routine.
- The court also rejected the defendants’ argument that emotional distress injuries must be “measurable” to be cognizable, noting that Massachusetts case law does not require corroborating medical or psychological evidence for emotional distress claims under chapter 93A.
- Furthermore, the appeals court criticized the district court’s analysis regarding class certification. The lower court had denied class certification on the grounds that individual factual inquiries into the severity of the intrusions on each class member’s privacy would predominate over common issues. However, the appeals court found that the plaintiff’s submitted call logs could potentially serve as common proof of class-wide legal and factual issues, thereby supporting the certification of the proposed class.
