According to consumers, Cohen & Slamowitz have engaged in a systematic and intentional course of behavior aimed at grossly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Under the act, any misleading, unfair, deceptive or coercive actions conducted in an effort to collect alleged outstanding consumer debts are strictly forbidden. According to consumers, Cohen & Slamowitz have engaged in personal campaigns against alleged debtors that have run roughshod over the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Consumers allege that they have been violently harassed on the telephone by employees of Cohen & Slamowitz and have been threatened with jail time, law suits and garnishment of wages. The consumers further allege that they have been insulted by employees of Cohen & Slamowitz and have been referred to, for example, as "deadbeats". The consumers further assert that this conduct has extended to other family members that answer the telephone. In addition, the consumers allege that employees of Cohen & Slamowitz have informed them that they have knowledge of the consumers' financial history and current property holdings, bank account balances and retirement investments and that they have been advised to liquidate these assets to repay their alleged debts or risk losing them. Even when legal counsel has been retained and numerous requests have been made to cease and desist all alleged harassing activity, the consumers allege that employees of Cohen & Slamowitz continued to call them repeatedly.

The consumers claim that Cohen & Slamowitz did not limit their alleged abusive tactics to oral communications. According to consumers, they also received harassing letters, in some instances as many as 375 individual letters. The consumers claim that these "form" type communications also violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. According to the consumers, these letters failed not notify them that they were sent from a debt collector, failed to provide them with the statutorily mandated statement outlining the consumers' right to 30 days to dispute the validity of the debt, created a false belief that an attorney had reviewed and evaluated the consumers' debt, and threatened to take actions against the consumers that cannot be legally taken or that were not intended to be taken. The consumers assert that all of these alleged actions amount to misleading, unfair, coercive and abusive behavior and violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and entitle them to damages.