This decision reverses the order granting an Anti-SLAPP motion in this FDCPA and UCL class action by a student loan debtor against a collection law firm and debt buyer. Closely following Tourgeman v. Nelson & Kennard (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1447, the opinion finds that the suit met the three enumerated requirements of a public benefit suit under CCP 425.17(b). It enforced an important public right and private enforcement was necessary because while public prosecutors had sued the defendants for similar wrongs, the public enforcement actions did not reach the members of the classes alleged in this case. The possibility that the plaintiff might be held liable for a large cost award if she lost the suit was enough to satisfy the disproportionate financial burden requirement. The fact that plaintiff sought a damage award for herself as well as class members did not show that plaintiff sought any disproportionate relief for herself so as to make the suit not brought solely in the public interest. Since section 425.27(b) applied, the suit was exempt from an Anti-SLAPP motion to strike and the motion had to be denied.