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.
Whether or not to use the Model Validation Notice is a debate that has existed since Regulation F went into effect. Some collection operations have chosen not to use the MVN, and just tried to make sure they had all the information in their letters that is required. A collection operation is facing a class-action lawsuit for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Regulation F for not including all the information that is purportedly required in an initial communication.
A copy of the complaint, filed in the District Court for the Northern District of Texas, can be accessed using case number 23-cv-00789 or by clicking here. A copy of the letter in question can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff received a letter from the defendant, seeking to collect on an unpaid medical debt. On the back of the letter was a disclosure, under the heading “Consumer Rights.” The disclosure said: Unless you notify this office by April 3, 2023 that you dispute the validity of this debt or any portion thereof, this office will assume the debt is valid. If you notify this office in writing by April 3, 2023 that you dispute the validity of this debt or any portion thereof, this office will obtain verification of the debt or obtain a copy of the judgment and mail you a copy of such judgment or verification. If you request this office in writing by April 3, 2023, this office will provide you with the name and address of the original creditor if different from the current creditor. Go to www.cfpb.gov/debt-collection to learn more about consumer protections in debt collection.
The complaint accuses the defendant of not informing the plaintiff that if the consumer disputes the debt or any portion thereof that the defendant would cease collection of the debt or the disputed portion of the debt until the defendant sends the consumer either verification of the debt or a copy of the judgment. That portion of the disclosure is included in the Model Validation Notice.
Along with being distressed, embarrassed, and humiliated, the actions of the defendant caused the plaintiff to suffer various emotional harms including, but not limited to, increased heartrate, difficulty with sleep, anxiety, and stress associated with the number of calls she was being disturbed with for a debt that should have never been associated with her, according to the complaint.
The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(10), 1692f, and 1692g of the FDCPA. It seeks to include anyone in Texas who received similar letters from the defendant where all of the required disclosure notice under Section 1006.34(c)(3)(i) of Regulation F was not included.
