A voicemail does count as a “communication” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, according to a ruling from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The ruling, however, did also state that even though the voicemail message did not mention the individual attempting to be contacted, there was a “meaningful disclosure” as required by the FDCPA because the collection agency mentioned its name and that it was attempting to collect a debt.
A copy of the ruling can be accessed here.
The case, Hart v. Credit Control, LLC has been remanded back to the District Court.
In attempting to collect a debt, the defendant called the plaintiff and left the following voicemail:
This is Credit Control calling with a message. This call is from a debt collector. Please call us at 866-784-1160. Thank you.
While the District Court originally ruled that the voicemail did not constitute a communication, the Appeals Court disagreed. The FDCPA defines communication as “The conveying of information regarding a debt [either] directly or indirectly to any person through any medium.” A voicemail meets that requirement, the Appeals Court ruled.
The voicemail, although short, conveyed information directly to Hart—by letting her know that a debt collector sought to speak with her and by providing her with instructions and contact information to return the call. The voicemail also indicated that a debt collector was seeking to speak to her as a part of its efforts to collect a debt. Credit Control argues that because the voicemail “essentially reveals no more than a hang-up call,” it cannot be a “communication.” However, adopting that view would cause us to ignore the broad statutory language. The statute broadly defines “communication” as a conveying of information “regarding a debt.” In order to be considered a communication, the only requirement of the information that is to be conveyed is that it must be regarding a debt. … There is no requirement in the statute that the information must be specific or thorough in order to be considered a communication.
In not including the mini-Miranda in the voicemail — the first communication that was made between the collection agency and the plaintiff — the agency failed to make the required disclosures.
The 11th Circuit notes in its ruling that none of the Appeals Courts have been asked to rule on what constitutes “meaningful disclosure” as required by the FDCPA.
We hold that meaningful disclosure does not require the individual caller to reveal her name, and this holding comports with text of the FDCPA.
While the plaintiff alleged that the defendant violated the FDCPA because the person placing the call did not make a “meaningful disclosure of the caller’s identity,” as required by the statute by including the actual name of the caller, the 11th Circuit ruled that was “too literal.”
Thus as long as the consumer is made aware of the debt collector’s name, i.e., the company collecting the debt, meaningful disclosure is provided.
