“I do not like the court’s reasoning on prudential standing. It found her act was not in the “zone of interest intended to be protected by the statute”.”

I agree with it whole heartedly. Private rights of action to sue over the violation of statutory rights should not become license for the creation of honeypots for the sole purpose of making money through the filing of lawsuits.

What she did was every bit as reprehensible as the phone spammers themselves.

… a plaintiff must still be able to show a concrete injury to have standing to sue.

Yep. I read the the memorandum opinion and order, Melody Stoops v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, Civil Action No. 3:15-83, US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

I’m a bit surprised she didn’t keep better accounts and allege the concrete damage of loss of cell phone minutes. That lost her constitutional standing. She apparently did have counsel.

I do not like the court’s reasoning on prudential standing. It found her act was not in the “zone of interest intended to be protected by the statute”.

But maybe I’m touchy on that subject. A few years back I had to waste a day of my time dealing with a debt collection agency who had a wrong phone number (my number). They called incessantly for most of a day, no matter what I told them, nor what proof I offered that I was not their debtor.

If I could have sued them back to the stone age, I would have.

The judge who denied her standing to sue is just following SCOTUS precedent from Spokeo v. Robins.

SCOTUS said in that case, that even where there is a technical violation of a statutory right, and congress has explicitly created a private right of action, a plaintiff must still be able to show a concrete injury to have standing to sue.

She’s not going after spammers. She’s going after a bank who relied on the false or erroneous information provided by a dead beat borrower.

I also wish she would go after spammers but she won’t. There’s no money in it.

She’s just proved that the FTC is either lying or incompetent. So, no doubt the government doesn’t want her to succeed in showing up the government as feckless overpaid nincompoops with better things to do than enforce laws that protect the little people.

I wouldn’t cry if she bankrupted some spammers. I also wouldn’t cry if the judge who denied her standing to sue found his phone ringing continuously with urgent messages from “Rachel at cardholder services” urging him to “press 3 to take advantage of this offer”.

She should have styled herself as a “consumer advocate” or “consumer watchdog”.