Sorry debt collectors, the 1st Amendment does not allow unfair and deceptive tactics

The Supreme Court of Alaska recently ruled that a debt collector’s unfair and deceptive tactics are not protected by the First Amendment. Apparently, the decision is the first appellate ruling on the issue by any court nationwide.

Robin Pepper, a mentally disabled woman, was sued by an Alaska debt collector without proper notice. The debt collector sent letters to a nonexistent address, misrepresented that Pepper was competent, and improperly sought a default judgment against her. Pepper then sued the debt collector under Alaska’s Unfair Trade Practices Act. The collector’s main defense was that its conduct was protected by the First Amendment.

The Alaska Supreme Court held that the First Amendment’s petition clause does not extend to conduct that was unfair, deceptive, and in violation of the Unfair Trade Practices Act. In so holding, the court ruled that debt collectors have “no legitimate interest in pursuing collection litigation without notifying debtors, or in seeking to default incompetent debtors without notice to their lawyers or guardians.”

Alaska Supreme Court Rejects Debt Collectors’ First Amendment Defense | Consumer Law & Policy Blog | November 24, 2009