The Center for Consumer Law and Economic Justice celebrates the decision of the California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, to publish its opinion in Lindsay v. Patenaude & Felix, APC, a pivotal case addressing the misuse of anti-SLAPP motions to evade accountability for abusive debt collection practices.
The Lindsay opinion provides much-needed clarification on the application of the public interest exception to anti-SLAPP motions, particularly in cases involving systemic consumer harms such as filing baseless lawsuits, falsifying evidence, and continuing collection efforts after dismissals. The Court held that consumers bringing class actions to enforce public rights may invoke the public interest exception, even when seeking damages, correcting a common misinterpretation of California’s anti-SLAPP statute.
This decision reinforces the critical role of private enforcement in curbing widespread debt collection abuses. Debt collectors file massive volumes of lawsuits—accounting for at least a quarter of California’s civil docket—with the knowledge that most consumers will default. These practices disproportionately harm vulnerable borrowers, particularly those with private student loans, who often lack the resources to navigate opaque and aggressive collection tactics.
The Center submitted a letter advocating for publication of the Lindsay opinion. The letter highlighted the importance of the decision in ensuring accountability for systemic abuses and offering guidance for trial courts and practitioners. The Court’s decision to certify the opinion for publication ensures it can now be cited as precedent throughout California courts.
Publication of the Lindsay opinion is a victory for consumers, empowering them to challenge fraudulent business practices in court and helping to prevent debt collectors from using anti-SLAPP motions to shield abusive tactics from scrutiny. The decision underscores the importance of protecting borrowers’ rights and holding debt collectors accountable for systemic misconduct.