Klemm & Associates sued Kevin Rotkiske to collect a credit-card debt and obtained a default judgment after serving process at an address where Rotkiske no longer lived. Rotkiske said he first learned of the judgment years later when a mortgage application was denied. He filed a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, but the district court and the Third Circuit held that the action was outside the statute’s one-year period because the alleged violation occurred when the collection suit and service took place. The Supreme Court affirmed. It held that the FDCPA’s plain text starts the limitations period on the date the violation occurs, not when the consumer discovers it. The Court declined to insert a general discovery rule into an unambiguous statute and noted that Rotkiske had not preserved or raised a separate fraud-based equitable exception. Justice Sotomayor concurred. Justice Ginsburg dissented in part and from the judgment, reasoning that fraudulent service should permit a fraud-based discovery rule.