Reversing an Anti-SLAPP order striking plaintiff’s complaint, this decision holds that Civ. Code 1788.17 incorporates into the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the strict liability standard of 15 USC 1692(e) for false statements made in collecting a debt or regarding the legal status of the debt.  Thus, the debt collector may be held liable under the Rosenthal Act for falsely stating that substitute service had been achieved on the debtor, leading to entry of a default judgment against her.  That is true even if the debt collector did not know the statement was false.  Civ. Code 1788.15(a) which makes it a violation to knowingly employ improper service of process to collect a debt is overridden by section 1788.7’s words “notwithstanding any other provision.”  However, under both state and federal law, the debtor may have an affirmative defense that the error was unintentional and occurred despite employment of procedures reasonably designed to avoid such errors.  Civ. Code, 1788.30(e); 15 USC 1692k(c).