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
Petitioners argue that Santander obtained rights in the debt but the debt is still owed or due to Sam's Cars.
Respondent says the provision at issue applies to a bank holding debts as collateral, not to a debt collector.
Santander contends that “owed” and “due” have subtly different meanings; a debt can be owed but not yet due.
According to Santander, santander states the key question is whether it was a debt collector at the time of the alleged violation.
Santander argues it may fall within the assignee exclusion, which applies to a person who receives a debt assignment solely to facilitate collection for another.
According to Santander, santander notes its servicing activity in 2012 was much less than today, indicating a different business context at the time of the alleged violations.
According to Counsel, counsel alleges that the petitioner's proposed solution to subsection (F)(iv) does not work and lacks any coherent sense.
According to Respondent, respondent alleges that a third‑party debt collector can evade the statutes if hired before a debt goes into default, even once it is delinquent.
Chief Justice Roberts noted that the case has been submitted to the Court.
- [1] b97185a793245549a986-r1-188cd69e39a2fa1f.pdf, p. 31
- [2] b97185a793245549a986-r1-188cd69e39a2fa1f.pdf, p. 5
- [3] b97185a793245549a986-r1-188cd69e39a2fa1f.pdf, p. 37
- [4] b97185a793245549a986-r1-188cd69e39a2fa1f.pdf, p. 39
- [5] b97185a793245549a986-r1-188cd69e39a2fa1f.pdf, p. 42
- [6] b97185a793245549a986-r1-188cd69e39a2fa1f.pdf, p. 46
- [7] b97185a793245549a986-r1-188cd69e39a2fa1f.pdf, p. 54
- [8] b97185a793245549a986-r1-188cd69e39a2fa1f.pdf, p. 54
- [9] b97185a793245549a986-r1-188cd69e39a2fa1f.pdf, p. 55
Background and question before the Court
According to Santander, the dispute centers on whether Santander Consumer USA, Inc. qualifies as a debt collector under the statutory exemption at issue.
Petitioners argue that the debt remains “owed or due” to Sam’s Cars, suggesting the exemption should not apply.
What each side argues
Petitioners’ Position
Petitioners contend that the debt remains owed or due to Sam’s Cars, meaning the statutory exemption does not apply.
Respondent (Santander) Position
Respondent says the provision applies only to banks holding debts as collateral, not to debt collectors.
Santander argues that “owed” and “due” are distinct; a debt can be owed without being due.
Santander maintains the key inquiry is whether it was a debt collector at the time of the alleged violation.
Santander argues it may be covered by the assignee exclusion, which applies to entities receiving debt assignments solely to facilitate collection for another.
According to Santander, santander points out that its servicing activity in 2012 was far less than today, indicating a different business context at the time of the alleged violations.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Kagan asked the petitioner for examples of sentences using the word “owed” to mean what the petitioner wants in this case.
According to Justice Kagan, justice Kagan later remarked that the case does not make much sense, prompting further discussion.
Justice Ginsburg asked whether the Court would need to leave open the question of the character of the business and the definition of “owed.”
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.
- b97185a793245549a986-r1-188cd69e39a2fa1f.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 25, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.