A debt collection letter, sent to the plaintiff’s girlfriend. Letters that allegedly did not include the proper disclosures. And a District Court judge from New York who dismissed the class-action complaint because the plaintiff failed to allege that he suffered a concrete injury.
The Background: The defendant sent the plaintiff two separate letters last September. Neither letter allegedly included the information that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act requires when communicating with consumers, such as the validation information and itemization information. One of the letters allegedly demanded payment by September 29, which was in the 30-day validation period window. The plaintiff also claimed that one of the letters was intentionally sent to his girlfriend, who was not responsible for the debt in any way.
- The plaintiff alleged he suffered two concrete injuries — the letters put his relationship with his girlfriend under stress and caused discord between them because he had to explain to her that she was not responsible for the debt, and he suffered severe emotional distress as a result of the defendant’s actions. The plaintiff was also confused and unsure of how to respond intelligently to the letters because they omitted critical information.
The Ruling: Comparing the details of this case to that of Hunstein, Judge Allyne R. Ross of the District Court for the Eastern District of New York ruled that the defendant’s actions did not make the plaintiff’s private information available to the public, nor did the plaintiff alleged that the disclosure would make his financial information known to the larger community. While Congress intended to explicitly prohibit collectors from sharing consumer’s financial information with third parties, the alleged harm experienced by the plaintiff “does not have a ‘close relationship’ with a common law cause of action,” and “is insufficiently concrete for standing purposes,” Judge Ross wrote.
- Regarding the claim that the plaintiff was confused and did not know how to respond to the letter, confusion alone is not sufficient for standing, Judge Ross noted, especially because he took no action after receiving the letter other than to file this lawsuit.
- Judge Ross did give the plaintiff a chance to amend his complaint.
