EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is part of a series that is sponsored by WebRecon. WebRecon identifies serial plaintiffs lurking in your database BEFORE you contact them and expose yourself to a likely lawsuit. Protect your company from as many as one in three new consumer lawsuits by scrubbing your consumers through WebRecon first. Want to learn more? Call (855) WEB-RECON or email admin@webrecon.net today! Thanks to WebRecon for sponsoring this series.
DISCLAIMER: This article is based on a complaint. The defendant has not responded to the complaint to present its side of the case. The claims mentioned are accusations and should be considered as such until and unless proven otherwise.
Ahhh, the undated Model Validation Notice. Leaving out something that is “so basic in the business world,” that is “arouses suspicions” why it was done in the first place, a plaintiff has filed a class-action lawsuit accusing a collector of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act — but not Regulation F, interestingly enough — because it send a Model Validation Notice without a date.
A copy of the complaint, filed in District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, can be accessed busing case number 22-cv-02692 or by clicking here.
Without a date, the itemization table, which referenced that “Between 07/26/2021 and today” and the “Total amount of the debt now” made it appear that the information was “incorrect, inaccurate, or otherwise misleading” and was a “strategy” used to “introduce a tacit element of confusion” and “achieve leverage over consumers by keeping key pieces of information away from them,” according to the complaint. Even though the itemization table indicates that no interest or fees had accrued from the itemization date to when the letter was sent, the amount of the debt was not static, the plaintiff says in his complaint, thus making it “extremely import for the Plaintiff to know as of what date this balance was correct.”
The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692d, 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(10), 1692f, and 1692g of the FDCPA. The complaint seeks to include anyone in Illinois who received a similarly undated notice from the defendant. Interestingly enough, the complaint makes no mention of Regulation F in any way, even though it was a Model Validation Notice that led to the lawsuit being filed.
