A District Court judge in New York has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss after it was sued for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because of an alleged contradiction between a statement on the front of a collection letter about obtaining more information about a debt and the validation notice disclosure that was included on the back page.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Denciger v. Network Recovery Services, Inc., can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff received a collection letter in regards to an unpaid medical debt. The front page of the letter included a statement that said, “[Y]ou still have a right to obtain more information about this debt or dispute this debt, either orally. . . or by writing.” The back page of the letter included the following disclosures:
If you do not dispute the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, either orally or in writing, within thirty days after you receive this notice we will assume this to be a valid debt owed by you.
If you notify us in writing within thirty days after you receive this notice that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, we will obtain verification of this debt or a copy of a judgment and mail a copy of such verification or judgment to you.
In the event the name and address of the current creditor is different from the original creditor, and you, within thirty days after you receive this notice, request in writing the name and address of the original creditor, we will supply this information to you.
The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the “inherent contradiction” between the sentence on the front of the letter saying more information could be obtained by calling or writing and the disclosure on the back saying some disputes can be made orally or in writing, violated the FDCPA.
But, as Judge Brian Cogan of the District Court for the Eastern District of New York pointed out, letters have to be read in their entirety to determine whether a least sophisticated consumer would be confused by a letter’s contents. The very next sentence after “[Y]ou still have a right to obtain more information about this debt or dispute this debt, either orally. . . or by writing” on the front page of the letter, Judge Cogan notes, says “YOUR RIGHTS ARE DESCRIBED ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS NOTICE.”
“…the sentence on the first side would cause the letter to violate the FDCPA only if the consumer did not continue to the reverse side,” Judge Cogan wrote in granting the motion to dismiss. “This alleged defect falls short of meeting the least-sophisticated-consumer standard.”
