WWJD?

In the first go ’round, Neill v. Bullseye Collection Agency promised to be one of the weirdest, most interesting cases in recent years. A collection agency was putting WWJD? —What Would Jesus Do?—in the upper corner of its dunning letters, and a couple named Mark and Sara Neill sued, claiming that the acronym was intended to frighten and condemn them—and thereby illegal under the federal statute that outlaws means of debt collection which “harass, oppress, or abuse any person.”

The first answer to What Would Jesus Do? is probably not be a debt collector. But how you get to the illegality of putting it on a letter, I’m not sure. Perhaps it’s vulgar, perhaps it’s stupid, perhaps it’s self-contradictory, and probably it’s blasphemous. If we had strong blasphemy laws in America, a good suit might have developed.

We don’t have such laws, so illegal I don’t get. Nonetheless, as Howard Friedman reported, “The court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim, finding that plaintiffs had stated enough facts to make out a plausible claim.”

And off everyone set for trial. Alas, after a counterclaim revealed that Mark Neill was, in fact, involved himself in the debt-collection business and was thus suing a business rival, the Neills withdrew their suit with prejudice (meaning that they cannot refile).

And so we miss the chance to learn the court’s reasoning about the violation of law with WWJD? .