The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a summary judgment ruling in favor of a defendant that was sued for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it invited the recipient of a collection letter to “eliminate further collection action” by calling the collector, which the plaintiff claimed deceived consumers into thinking that a phone call was a “legally effective” means of ceasing collection activity and raising uncertainty about how to dispute a debt.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Moyer v. Patenaude & Felix can be accessed by clicking here.
While the plaintiff argued that the choice of words used by the defendant in the letter — eliminate further collection activity — allegedly violated Section 1692e(10) of the FDCPA and could deceive a consumer into thinking that a call could cease collection activities, the Appeals Court determined that the plaintiff was reading too far in between the lines and that she “reads into the invitation an implication that it does not create.”
The plaintiff also claimed that the phrase allegedly violated Section 1692g of the FDCPA because the invitation to call was placed directly above the validation notice detailing the rights of the consumer to dispute the debt. But again, the Appeals Court determined that the plaintiff’s claims were a bridge too far. “Moyer sees confusion where none exists,” the Appeals Court wrote. “The Validation Notice instructs the debtor to write to exercise their
§ 1692g rights, leaving no suggestions that a phone call would suffice. Likewise, the Contact Sentence does not suggest that a debtor could exercise any § 1692g rights over the phone. And the order of the paragraphs does not create confusion about what each one conveys.”
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a summary judgment ruling in favor of a defendant that was sued for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it invited the recipient of a collection letter to “eliminate further collection action” by calling the collector, which the plaintiff claimed deceived consumers into thinking that a phone call was a “legally effective” means of ceasing collection activity and raising uncertainty about how to dispute a debt.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Moyer v. Patenaude & Felix can be accessed by clicking here.
While the plaintiff argued that the choice of words used by the defendant in the letter — eliminate further collection activity — allegedly violated Section 1692e(10) of the FDCPA and could deceive a consumer into thinking that a call could cease collection activities, the Appeals Court determined that the plaintiff was reading too far in between the lines and that she “reads into the invitation an implication that it does not create.”
The plaintiff also claimed that the phrase allegedly violated Section 1692g of the FDCPA because the invitation to call was placed directly above the validation notice detailing the rights of the consumer to dispute the debt. But again, the Appeals Court determined that the plaintiff’s claims were a bridge too far. “Moyer sees confusion where none exists,” the Appeals Court wrote. “The Validation Notice instructs the debtor to write to exercise their
§ 1692g rights, leaving no suggestions that a phone call would suffice. Likewise, the Contact Sentence does not suggest that a debtor could exercise any § 1692g rights over the phone. And the order of the paragraphs does not create confusion about what each one conveys.”
