Renetrice R. Pierre v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.

This case, as Judge Hamilton noted in his en banc dissent, “presents an important question on the extent of Congress’s . . . power to authorize private civil remedies for statutory violations that cause intangible but concrete injuries, including emotional distress, fear, and confusion.” Pierre v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 36 F.4th 728, 729 (2022) (Hamilton, J., dissenting). In this case, the district court certified a class and granted Petitioner summary judgment on her Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) claim, and a jury awarded the class statutory damages. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit vacated the judgment on the basis that Petitioner suffered only confusion and emotional harm, which are not sufficiently concrete for Article III standing to pursue an FDCPA claim, despite Congress granting a right of action. Pierre v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 29 F.4th 934, 939 (7th Cir. 2022). In so holding, the decision below “deepen[ed] an important and growing circuit split” regarding Congress’s ability to elevate intangible injuries to a legally cognizable status. Id. at 940 (Hamilton, J., dissenting). Moreover, the decision is “out of step” with Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016), and TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021). Pierre, 36 F.4th at 736 (Hamilton, J., dissenting). The question presented is: Whether a plaintiff who suffers emotional or psychological distress and confusion from a debt collector’s unlawful attempt to collect a debt has Article III