A District Court judge in Illinois has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss after it was sued for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it informed the plaintiff in two collection letters that it was not obligated to renew settlement offers that were being made and because the inclusion of the defendant’s privacy notice confused and intimidated the plaintiff. The case may also be the first one to be ruled on where the word Hunstein is muttered, albeit in a judicial footnote.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Giannini v. United Collection Bureau can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff defaulted on an auto loan, which was sold to a third-party. The debt buyer then placed the account with the defendant for collection. The defendant sent two collection letters to the plaintiff. The first letter identified the debt buyer as the current creditor, although it did not explain how the creditor came to be the owner of her debt, while also identifying the bank as the original creditor, and providing the last four digits of the plaintiff’s account number and account balance.
Both letters offered three options to settle the debt for less than the full balance. In both letters, after the offers were made, the defendant notified the plaintiff that it was “not obligated to renew this offer.”
When it sent the first letter, the defendant also sent a copy of its privacy policy to the plaintiff.
After receiving the second letter, the plaintiff filed suit, alleging the letters and the privacy policy violated Sections 1692e and 1692f of the FDCPA.
Judge Manish Shah of the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois did not have to look far to find a reason why the claim that defendant mentioning it was not obligated to renew the settlement offers did not violate the FDCPA. Citing two precedents from within the Seventh Circuit that determined even an unsophisticated consumer would “realize that there is a renewal possibility but that it is not assured,” Judge Shah dismissed the plaintiff’s claim. “I agree with Evory and Preston that advising a consumer that the debt collector is not obligated to renew an offer is truthful, accurate, not coercive, and not unfair,” he wrote.
Moving on to the plaintiff’s claim that the inclusion of the privacy policy did nothing other than to intimidate her, Judge Shah disagreed with the plaintiff’s argument that including something in a letter that is unnecessary is the same as being unfair. “… ‘unnecessary’ is hardly synonymous with ‘unfair,’ and voluntarily including an accurate statement of a creditor’s privacy policy is not a practice that is false or deceptive, let alone unconscionable,” Judge Shah wrote.
As for Hunstein, the plaintiff moved to cite additional authority while the motion to dismiss was pending. Judge Shah granted the plaintiff’s motion, but noted that the case cited by the plaintiff — Hunstein v. Preferred Collection & Management Services
