On March 13, the California Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District reversed a lower court’s dismissal of a consumer class action, finding that the trial court erred in granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of the defendant debt buyer on the basis that the plaintiff consumer borrower lacked standing absent a concrete injury. The appellate court ruled that the state’s Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (FDBPA) confers standing on a plaintiff alleging a statutory violation, even absent actual harm. The plaintiff had filed the class action asserting that he received a disclosure from the debt buyer’s agent about the plaintiff’s charged-off debt, as required under the FDBPA, but that it appeared in a font smaller than the minimum size required by law. The plaintiff sought statutory damages under the FDBPA. The lower court dismissed the case, concluding the plaintiff failed to allege actual harm.

On appeal, the court focused on whether the FDBPA itself provides standing based solely on a violation of statutory rights. The appellate court held that the FDBPA’s language allows consumers to sue for “any” violation and authorizes statutory damages regardless of actual damages. The court emphasized that the statute creates enforceable rights and remedies for informational injuries, and nothing in the law requires a plaintiff to demonstrate additional harm beyond the violation itself. The court found that even technical violations, such as improper font size, fall under the statute. The court’s reversal allows the case to proceed and awards appellate costs to the plaintiff.