Whether an obligation is a "debt" is a question of law for the court to determine. Garcia v. Jenkins/Babb LLP, No. 3:11-CV-3171-N-BH, 2013 WL 6388443, at *5 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2013), aff'd sub nom. Garcia v. Primary Fin. Servs., 605 F. App'x 418 (5th Cir. 2015) (per curiam).
"To succeed under such a tie-in claim, however, the claimant must show that he is a 'consumer' as defined in the [DTPA]." Garcia v. Jenkins/Babb LLP, No. 3:11-cv-3171-N-BH, 2013 WL 6388443, at *10 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2013) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted); accord Cushman v. GC Servs., L.P., 397 F. App'x 24, 27-28 (5th Cir. 2010); Taylor v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. H-12-2929, 2013 WL 3353955, at *4-*5 (S.D. Tex. July 3, 2013); Bray v. Cadle Co., No. 4:09-CV-663, 2010 WL 4053794, at *9 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 14, 2010) (explaining that all Texas state and federal courts addressing the issue "seem to have concluded that 'the party bringing a claim under the [DTPA] for a violation of a tie-in statute must still satisfy the requirement of being a 'consumer' under the [DTPA]") (collecting cases). JPMC argues that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under the DTPA because they are not "consumers" as defined by the DTPA.