A District Court judge in New Jersey has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss a claim in a class-action suit that it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by allowing its name — Unifund CCR — to be viewed through a glassine window on an envelope containing a collection letter, rejecting the plaintiff’s argument that anyone could learn that the company was a debt collector by looking up the company name online. The judge denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss a claim that the creditor to whom the debt was owed violated the FDCPA because it was not licensed under state law in New Jersey.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Valentine v. Unifund CCR can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff received a collection letter from the defendant. The letter was sent in an envelope that contained a glassine window where the return address is usually displayed. Through the window — on the letter — the defendant’s name and address were visible. The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the defendant violated Section 1692f(8) of the FDCPA, which prohibits using any language or symbol, other than the debt collector’s address, on any envelope when communicating with a consumer by use of the mails or by telegram, except that a debt collector may use his business name if such name does not indicate that he is in the debt collection business. All someone had to do, the plaintiff argued, was look up the company name online, and that someone would see that the defendant was a debt collector. After agreeing with the defendant that its name does not indicate that the plaintiff is in the debt collection business, Judge John Michael Vazquez of the District Court for the District of New Jersey rejected the plaintiff’s argument, because if that logic was applied, than any name on any envelope containing a collection letter would violate the FDCPA because someone could look up the company name online and learn that fact.
” … if the Court adopted Plaintiff’s interpretation, it would eviscerate the statutory exception that permits debt collectors to include their name on the envelope of a debt collection letter,” Judge Vazquez wrote. “Given the ubiquity of the Internet, under Plaintiff’s interpretation of Section 1692f(8), any name would indicate that the entity is in the debt collection business after an Internet search. The Court will not construe the statutory language in a manner that fundamentally alters Section 1692f(8).”
The defendant attempted to argue that the creditor did not need a license to operate in New Jersey because it purchased the debt from a bank that was exempt from having to do so, but Judge Vazquez rejected that argument.
