District Court (Cal.) Finds FTC Act Not Privately Enforceable; FDCPA Affords No Injunctive Relief

In Ajib v. Financial Assistance, Inc., 2013 WL 5553249 (E.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Boone addressed two claims commonly raised by in pro per plaintiffs:  that defendants violated the FTC Act and that an injunction to enjoin further FDCPA violations is warranted.  Judge Boone found neither claim viable.

Plaintiff alleges that the actions of the defendants were in violation of the FTCA and is seeking injunctive relief and damages. The FTCA provides that “[u]nfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are … unlawful.” 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1). However, the FTCA vests remedial power solely in the Federal Trade Commission to combat unfair trade practices. Carlson v. Coca–Cola Co., 483 F.2d 279, 280–81 (9th Cir.1973); Nelson v. American Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., No. 2:10–cv–04562–GAf (PLAx), 2010 WL 3034233, at *2 (C.D.Cal. July 29, 2010). The protection against unfair practices provided for by the FTCA does not give consumers a private right of action. Carlson, 483 F.2d at 281. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to state a claim under the FTCA and the Court recommends that Counts One and Two be dismissed with prejudice.

Judge Boone also found no injunctive relief available under the FDCPA.

Plaintiff seeks “temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief” for violations of the FDCPA. However, the FDCPA does not permit private actions for injunctive relief. 15 U.S.C. § 1692k; Vitullo v. Mancini, 684 F.Supp.2d 760, 763–64 (E.D.Va.2010) (“Congress did not intend to allow private litigants to seek injunctive relief under § 1692k”); Weiss v. Regal Collections, 385 F.3d 337, 342 (3d Cir.2004) (“Because the statute explicitly provides declaratory and equitable relief only through action by the Federal Trade Commission, we believe the different penalty structure demonstrates Con-gress’s intent to preclude equitable relief in private actions [under the FDCPA]”); Crawford v. Equifax Payment Services, Inc., 201 F.3d 877, 882 (7th Cir.2000) (“all private actions under the [ FDCPA] are for damages”); Sibley v. Fulton DeKalb Collection Service, 677 F.2d 830, 834 (11th Cir.1982) ( “equitable relief is not available to an individual under the civil liability section of the [ FDCPA]”). Because the FDCPA does not provide for injunctive relief to private litigants, Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief should be denied without leave to amend.