The FDCPA has an interesting provision that's hard to catch in their PDF file. It states: 814(a) Compliance with this title shall be enforced by the [Federal Trade] Commission... For purpose of the exercise by the Commission of its functions and powers under the Federal Trade Commission Act, a violation of this title [ie, FDCPA] shall be deemed an unfair or deceptive act or practice in violation of that Act [ie, FTCA]. All of the functions and powers of the Commission under the Federal Trade Commission Act are available to the Commission to enforce compliance by any person with this title, irrespective of whether that person is engaged in commerce or meets any other jurisdictional tests in the Federal Trade Commission Act, including the power to enforce the provisions of this title in the same manner as if the violation had been a violation of a Federal Trade Commission trade regulation rule. Congress obviously intended to empower the FTC to address issues that consumers are prohibited or otherwise incapable of dealing with. The fact that they do very little is a sad fact of life. But I'm wondering if the above language gives consumers any more leverage in terms of calling on resources "from on high" by claiming violations of FTCA as well as FDCPA in their court actions? In other words, if any individual violation is not only a violation of FDCPA but also FTCA, and you can win a case on FDCPA grounds, are there any other benefits of claiming and winning against FTCA grounds as well? Like, maybe FTCA allows bigger fines or additional sanctions to be imposed somehow? (I haven't looked at FTCA yet; but this has me curious.)
The FTCA is the act which tells the FTC what their job is, and how they can execute their jobs. Think of it as their job description. Some state CPLs (Consumer Protection Law) use language to incorporate an "unfair or deceptive act or practice" as determined by the FTCA to be violations of their state's CPL. Now, you can argue both the violations, but you will more than likely only get rewards under one of the violations. At least from the case law which I've seen summarized.
