Here. In the Maryland Bar Journal. And here is the abstract:
This article examines current trends in debt buyer litigation, including a review of recent regulatory actions and the impact of debt buyer lawsuits on individual consumers and on small claims courts. The article calls for a ban on the sale of consumer junk debt by banks, and for a requirement to make public the terms, conditions and disclaimers from sales contracts between banks and junk debt buyers.
An interesting twist I am seeing on these is that the buyers (and sometimes even first-parties) sue on account stated rather than on the credit card contract. The intent appears to be two-fold: one, to avoid having th prove the debt, especially if they get a judge who does is “flexible” on the requirements for account stated; and, two, to avoid the fee-shifting provisions that appear nearly universal in credit card agreements.
[I am _not_ licensed in your state and do not represent you. If you want legal advice call someone licensed in your state.]
Consumer rights are being violated everyday by “Junk Debt Buyers” in Maryland. Evidence has shown that many unsubstantiated claims and or claims for debts not owed have been filed in Maryland. Using the courts against consumers to force them to pay debts not owed has become common place. The Bar Journal article brings some focus on the inadequate remedy that consumers have been dealt. Tens of thousands of unqualified judgments have been INDEXED against Maryland consumers, weakening families unnecessarily and hurting our economy over meritless claims for debts not owed.