Kimberly Moyal

Document Type

Research Memorandum

Publication Date




The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) was passed to prohibit a debt collector from engaging in abusive debt collection practices. The FDCPA serves to protect a consumer by giving a consumer a statutory claim against an abusive debt collector. In 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, ruled that a party pursuing a statutory claim, like an FDCPA claim, must meet the Article III standing requirements of the U.S. Constitution. To establish the first element of the Article III standing analysis, the plaintiff must prove that they suffered a “concrete and particularized” injury.

After Spokeo, federal circuit courts have determined whether a certain intangible injury sustained by a consumer qualifies as a concrete injury under the first element of the Article III standing analysis. For example, circuit courts have had to determine whether a consumer’s confusion or a debt collector’s omission caused a consumer to suffer a concrete injury.

This memorandum examines what types of intangible injuries satisfy the concrete injury prong under the first element of the Article III standing analysis. Part I of this memorandum outlines the FDCPA requirements and the Article III requirements for a consumer to have standing to bring an FDCPA claim in federal court. Part II of this memorandum explains how circuit courts are split over what intangible injuries—including: (A) confusion, (B) stress or anxiety, and (C) omissions—are “concrete” under Article III.


To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.