This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Background and question before the Court
The Court is asked to interpret the scope of the bona‑fide error defense under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
What each side argues
Petitioner Position (Karen L. Jerman)
Petitioner argues that ignorance of the law is not a defense under the FDCPA and that the bona‑fide error defense should be applied narrowly.
Respondent Position (Carlisle, McNellie, Rini Kramer & Ulrich LPA)
According to Coakley, respondent contends that the bona‑fide error defense should shield lawyers and debt collectors who make reasonable legal errors.
What happened at oral argument
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 30e9c49ead41b41ed581-r1-2d15c865f973676d.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 23, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.