Opinion ID: 2561867
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: purposive and policy arguments

Text: Notwithstanding our conclusion that Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate an injury based on our caselaw, the purposive and policy arguments advanced by Plaintiffs do not point to a different conclusion. In addition to the language of the statute, Plaintiffs assert that failing to find injury in this case would controvert the purpose of HRS chapter 443B. Specifically, Plaintiffs claim that if Rawlings's view that one is not injured for paying a valid debt were adopted, HRS chapter 443B would be rendered virtually unenforceable by the victims of illegal collection activities. Plaintiffs also claim that limiting enforcement of chapter 443B to the Attorney General would needlessly burden the state. First, requiring some injury beyond payment of a valid underlying obligation that was not wrongfully induced does not bar consumer enforcement of all of chapter 443B. Several provisions of that chapter concern methods of collection that are in themselves injurious. For example, HRS § 443B-9, an analogue of the attorney's fee statute at issue in Ai, see supra note 25, bars the collection of excessive fees by collection agencies. HRS § 443B-15 (1993) prohibits collection by means of any threat, coercion, or attempt to coerce, and expressly bars five iterations of such conduct. HRS § 443B-18 prohibits the use [of] any fraudulent, deceptive, or misleading representation or means to collect, or attempt to collect, claims or to obtain information concerning a debtor or alleged debtor and includes nine types of representations that are expressly prohibited. HRS § 443B-18 (Supp.2006). The title of remaining sections of chapter 443B express similar prohibitions on certain means of collecting: HRS § 443B-16 (1993), Harassment and abuse; HRS § 443B-17 (1993), Unreasonable publication; and HRS § 443B-19 (1993), Unfair or unconscionable means. [31] Second, denying individual enforcement of valid debts collected by an unregistered collection agency, where no injurious method of collection was alleged or shown, does not abrogate the purpose of chapter 443B. Justice Acoba, then an ICA judge, discussed the legislative history of this chapter in Fuller: In 1987, the legislature enacted chapter 44313 to provide general regulation of collection practices[,] to protect creditors from unscrupulous or dishonest collection agencies, and to protect debtors from abusive collection agencies[.] Hse. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 541, in 1987 House Journal, at 1355. Provisions like 443B-9 involve the general regulation of collection agencies and are enforceable by the director. . . . 78 Hawaii at 221-22, 891 P.2d at 308-09 (Acoba, J., dissenting in part). This court has also discussed the purpose of chapter 480, which allows enforcement of chapter 443B: HRS chapter 480's paramount purpose was to encourage those who have been victim ized by persons engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices to prosecute their claim, thereby affording an additional deterrent to those who would practice unfair and deceptive business acts. Sen. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 600, in 1969 Senate Journal, at 1111; Hse. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 661, in 1969 House Journal, at 882-883. . . . The foregoing statutory construction is consistent with HRS chapter 480's function as a mechanism for abating practices that potentially injure consumers in general. Zanakis-Pico, 98 Hawai`i at 317, 47 P.3d at 1230 (emphases added). Although a consumer may sue an unregistered agency who also causes the consumer some injuryeither by charging a prohibited fee, e.g. HRS § 443B-9, or by attempting to collect in a way that causes non-economic injury-without an injury, enforcement of HRS § 443B-3 is in the hands of the Attorney General and the Director of the Office of Consumer Protection. HRS § 480-2(d) (1993). As stated by then-Judge Acoba in Fuller, HRS § 443B-3, like the provision analyzed in Fuller, is one of those sections in chapter 443B concerned with the general regulation of collection agencies, and not a section such as HRS §§ 443B-15 to-19, which has to do with prohibited acts involving debtors, and which therefore allows for individual enforcement. 78 Hawaii at 222, 891 P.2d at 309 (Acoba, J., dissenting in part). As such, Rawlings's conduct in violation of HRS § 443B-3, while injurious to the state's interest in regulation of collection agencies, did not directly harm Plaintiffs. Therefore, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated any injury and may not bring suit for their claim under HRS § 480-13(b).