Home » Business » Consumer Debt Collection: Nominal Damages & Class Action

Consumer Debt Collection: Nominal Damages & Class Action

by Priya Shah – Business Editor

Massachusetts Court Limits Damages in Debt Collection Case,Certifies Class for Nominal Relief

Boston,MA – September 25,2025 -‍ A Massachusetts ​federal court has issued a critically important ruling in a consumer protection case,powers⁤ v.⁢ Receivables Performance ‍Management‍ LLC (Civil No.⁤ 4:21-cv-12125-MRG), limiting potential⁣ damages ⁢while‍ concurrently certifying a class action. Judge Guzman’s ​decision⁢ addresses claims of ​violations under massachusetts ‌Chapter 93A, the state’s consumer⁢ protection statute,⁤ stemming from alleged excessive debt collection calls.

The ‌court granted ​RPM’s motion for summary judgment to the extent of limiting Powers‘ damages ⁢to nominal damages of $25, finding that Powers “has failed to demonstrate that ⁣she ‌is entitled to anything⁣ more than nominal damages.” The ruling emphasized that Powers’ testimony described “relatively minor invasions⁤ of privacy and emotional distress that are⁤ arduous to quantify and⁣ for⁢ which Powers has asserted no method of measuring,” and that she submitted “no measurable evidence of her ⁣emotional distress.” The court also noted⁣ powers’ privacy invasion wasn’t “severe,” ‍particularly given‍ the reduced ‌privacy interest afforded to debtors under Massachusetts law. Consequently, the ‍court denied‌ treble damages and ‌clarified that ⁢any‌ award would be a single $25 payment,⁢ not $25 per⁤ excessive call.

Despite limiting⁣ damages, the court partially granted Powers’ motion for class certification. Acknowledging the ‌First Circuit’s decision in Nightingale, the court stated‌ that RPM’s⁢ arguments against certification were ⁤”not availing.” ​Though, the⁣ class definition ‌was amended to include⁢ only those “who do not seek to prove actual damages.”

The‍ certified class consists of ⁣”All‍ persons residing‌ in the ⁣Commonwealth of Massachusetts who, (1) between ​September 18, 2014 and September 18, 2018, Defendant initiated in-excess of two‍ telephone communications within a seven-day period regarding​ a debt which was more than ⁣thirty-days past due to their residence, cellular telephone, or other provided telephone number; and who (2) do not seek to ‍prove actual⁣ damages.”

The court also indicated that Powers would be eligible for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs as a prevailing ⁣party under​ Chapter 93A § 9(4).

This ruling highlights a potential strategy for plaintiffs in similar debt collection cases – pursuing class action relief focused‌ on nominal damages under​ Chapter 93A, particularly where proving substantial ‍individual harm is challenging. The full opinion,⁤ spanning⁣ 37⁤ pages, is​ available for review ‍at https://masslawyersweekly.com/files/2025/09/02-530-25.pdf.

You may also like

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.