⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

We hear oral argument from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Frankfort v. Metropolis Technologies. The dispute centers on whether a company that manages parking lots using artificial intelligence and sends violation notices demanding fines substantially higher than the unpaid parking fee qualifies as a debt collector under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, commonly known as the F D C P A. The plaintiffs are consumers who parked at Metropolis-managed lots. They allege that Metropolis designed a system in which parkers can drive out without paying, only to later receive notices demanding fines ten to fifteen times the original amount, backed by threats of towing, booting, and additional fees. The central legal question is whether Metropolis falls under the F D C P A's debt collector definition, either because its principal purpose is collecting debts owed to itself, or because it regularly collects debts owed to third-party lot owners. The district court dismissed the claim with prejudice and denied leave to amend. One notable procedural wrinkle: Metropolis never moved to dismiss on the so-called originator exclusion, the carve-out for a company collecting a debt it originated itself, and neither side briefed it. The district court's order says the magistrate judge's report raised that ground on its own initiative, and the district judge then relied on it to hold that amendment would be futile. The plaintiffs dispute that the report ever rested on it, and you will hear the panel press both sides on that question.

Frankfort v. Metropolis Technologies (No. 25-11168) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued August 4, 2026.