A District Court judge in Michigan has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss after it was sued for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, ruling that informing the recipient of a collection letter that the unpaid debt may be reported to a credit reporting agency which would negatively impact the recipient’s credit score if the account was left unresolved does not overshadow the validation notice.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Echols v. Congress Collection can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff received a collection letter from the defendant. Along with the validation notice, the letter also included the following statement, “This account may be placed on your personal credit file and thus negatively impact your credit score if left unresolved.” The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the statement violated Sections 1692e(2)(a), 1692e(10), and 1692g of the FDCPA by “scaring” the plaintiff into making a payment immediately to avoid the debt being reported to a credit reporting agency and overshadowing the 30-day window to dispute the debt.
The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiff lacked standing to sue because she did not suffer a concrete injury as a result of the statement. The plaintiff only speculated that the statement about reporting the debt may coerce someone to promptly pay the debt. The defendant pointed out that the plaintiff never paid the debt, never disputed the debt, and never actually alleged that she would have acted differently if the statement was not included in the letter.
Ultimately, ruled Judge Paul Borman of the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the plaintiff “failed to show that she suffered a harm that Congress intended to prevent or that is analogous to a harm that the common law recognizes.” The letter “does not misrepresent the validity or status of the debt, demand payment by a certain date, or misstate Plaintiff’s dispute or validation rights.”
