A District Court judge in New York has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss after it was sued for multiple alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act based on a letter that was sent to the plaintiff, including claiming that the letter did not adequately identify the creditor to whom the debt was owed, did not adequately identify the address to which disputes must be sent, and that the validation notice was overshadowed because of the letter’s format.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Taylor v. American Coradius International can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff received a collection letter from the defendant. The letter included a payment coupon which listed a “Creditor: Synchrony Bank” and an “Original Creditor: WebBank.” The text of the letter started, “We are writing to you regarding your PayPal Credit account. The servicer of PayPal Credit accounts is Bill Me Later, Inc. This account has been placed with our office for collection.”
The plaintiff claimed that a least sophisticated consumer would be confused because the letter listed multiple names, any of which may be the creditor to whom the debt was owed. Judge Eric Komitee of the District Court for the Eastern District of New York quickly shot down this argument by noting that the coupon conspicuously identified Synchrony Bank as the “Creditor.” But Judge Komitee did ponder whether mentioning PayPal and Bill Me Later would be confusing or clarifying to a least sophisticated consumer. At the end of the day, Judge Komitee decided, Section 1692g of the FDCPA does not require the identification of “every step in the chain of ownership” that a debt travels, just that the creditor to whom the debt is owed be identified. And the letter was perfectly clear about that, he said.
The plaintiff also claimed that listing two different addresses in the letter would confuse a least sophisticated consumer about where to send a dispute. But, Judge Komitee said, if the reader were to read the letter in its entirety, there would be no confusion. The body of the letter states if the plaintiff “notif[ies] this office in writing” that he “dispute[s] the validity of this debt or any portion thereof,” then “this office will obtain verification of the debt.” Further down in the letter, an address is included, above which states “Office Address.”
Finally, the plaintiff claimed that the validation notice was not set apart from the rest of the letter because it was printed in the same font size and color as the rest of the letter. Other parts of the letter were in bold and drew the eyes away from the validation notice, the plaintiff claimed. While acknowledging that the formatting of a letter can be overshadowing, Judge Komitee said that in this case. “the formatting here comes nowhere close.”
