Opinion ID: 174856
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Plaintiffs' Constitutional Challenge

Text: Plaintiffs submit that any construction of debt relief agency that includes attorneys renders certain provisions of BAPCPA unconstitutional. Specifically attacked as facially violative of the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech are the following sections of Title 11:(1) § 526(a)(4), which prohibits debt relief agencies from advising their clients to incur more debt in contemplation of [bankruptcy] or to pay an attorney or bankruptcy petition preparer fee or charge for services performed as part of preparing for or representing a debtor in a bankruptcy case; [6] (2) § 527(a) and (b), which require a debt relief agency to provide an assisted person with certain notices; [7] (3) § 528(a)(1)-(2), which require a debt relief agency to execute a written contract with an assisted person; [8] and (4) § 528(a)(3)-(4) and (b)(2), which mandate language to be included in debt relief agency advertisements. [9] Plaintiffs also contend that the contract requirements of § 528(a)(1)-(2) violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.