I am in complete agreement that people should pay their debts.  There is also a law passed by Congress that governs the actions of debt collectors.  This company bought debt.  Debt that they did not inherently incur from a service or product they provided.  They went to collect this debt, but obviously in a manner that was contrary to the law that governs debt collectors.  This ruling upheld their position that they are not subject to the law based solely on a strict interpretation of the definition of a "debt collector".  So for a company that bought debt for the sole purpose of collecting it, why is an exemption from following the law that governs the actions of a debt collector a good ruling?