Anyone who has ever had a credit card and received a statement will know that there are two amounts that matter – the balance that is owed and the minimum payment that is due. If that is not confusing to anyone, why would a collection letter that featured the same figures be? A District Court judge in Pennsylvania agrees with me and has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case.
The Background: First, this case is so old that it ties back to the plaintiff’s Sears card. I think that was definitely worth mentioning. The plaintiff received a collection letter in 2019 from the defendant that indicated at the top of the page that the balance on the account was $2,875.54 and that the minimum payment that needed to be made was $579. Also in the letter was a disclosure that interest was accruing on the balance and that the amount that was due on the day the plaintiff paid might be higher than what was stated in the letter.
The Claim: The plaintiff claimed the two different balances would be confusing to a least sophisticated consumer about how much to pay and the disclosure about interest accruing was confusing. When looked at as a whole, the letter was misleading.
The Ruling: The letter informed the plaintiff to “please make your payment of at least the minimum payment due” which immediately preceded the disclosure about accrued interest, noted Judge Robert D. Mariani of the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
“The Court concludes that the Letter could not plausibly cause confusion to the least sophisticated consumer as to whether the ‘Account Balance’ or the ‘Minimum Payment Due’ is currently owed,” Judge Mariani wrote. “The Letter is abundantly clear that the UCB is presently attempting to collect the ‘Minimum Payment Due.’ ”
Learn more.
