Right Guy/Wrong Tool: How a Missouri Collection Agency Keeps Dodging AG's Bullets

Here’s a visual representation of what’s happening between the Show-Me State’s attorney general, Chris Koster (to be played by Conan O’Brien and Ted Haggard in the movie that will have a subplot about identical cousins), and the BBB F-rated Professional Debt Management, LLC:

[warning: cartoon violence; Keanu Reeves’s emoting]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgbOcSqfGJk

Koster brought a suit against Professional Debt Management back in 2009 for reasons you’ve probably already listed in your head: coercion, badgering, threats; basically, categorically checking off everything a business shouldn’t do in regards to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. That suit was recently dismissed.

Now, yes: the Better Business Bureau is a testimony-based outfit, and it’s easy to see how, say, collection agencies and mannered dentists might bear the brunt of a litany of bad customer reviews. It’s also not necessarily secret that many debt collection complaints are only complaints – by which I mean people who don’t want to pay collection agencies are more likely to complain about collection agencies, whether there’s any merit to the complaint or not.

But an F is kind of serious. And so is an attorney general loaded for bear. Or, almost loaded for bear.

So, what happened is this: in bringing his suit against Professional Debt Management, Koster used as his trump card the Merchandising Practices Act – a powerful piece of legislation, and totally appropriate if Professional Debt Management were a retailer. Turns out, though: they’re not. (I’ll wait for you to pick your jaw up from the floor over that Shyamalan-esque twist.) Since the Merchandising Practices Act is for “the sale or advertisement of merchandise,” and since collection agencies generally aren’t selling merchandise, you can see where this went sort of wrong for Koster.

The court was rooting for Koster, too: “We acknowledge and commend the State’s efforts to aggressively police the marketplace of trade and commerce,” the judges wrote in their decision. “With our holding, we do not suggest that the actions alleged in the Petition are not actionable. However, we cannot undertake a legislative role and write into the MPA language that simply does not exist. We do not read the plain language of the MPA to provide that debt collection by a third party as alleged in the Petition is “in connection with” the sale of merchandise, and is included among the activities prohibited by the MPA.”

It’s unclear what Koster’s next step will be. Appealing the decision seems…well, not appealing. Regrouping and revamping his cadre of legislation might make more sense. For now, Professional Debt Management is safe.