It might not be a ruling on the merits of the plaintiff’s claim, but a District Court judge in New York has dismissed a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act “only convenient way to communicate” case on the grounds the plaintiff did not suffer a concrete injury and does not have standing to sue.
The Background: We’ve all seen these cases by now. A consumer sends a communication — usually in writing — to a collector, saying the only convenient channel of communication is via email or text. In some cases, the consumer will specifically indicate that he or she is not disputing the debt nor are they seeking validation.
- In this case, the plaintiff mailed a letter to the defendant after seeing an item on her credit report. The letter said the only convenient way for her to be contacted was via email.
- The defendant sent a letter back to the plaintiff, said it had received the plaintiff’s letter and understood that the plaintiff was “inquiring about or requesting documentation about the accuracy of its records concerning her account.”
- The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the defendant violated Section 1692c(a) of the FDCPA by communicating with her via a method that the plaintiff had deemed to be inconvenient. The plaintiff argued the communication intruded upon her seclusion and invaded her privacy, which upset, distressed, and alarmed her.
The Ruling: While the defendant acknowledged the plaintiff claimed to have suffered a concrete injury and had standing to sue, Judge Pamela K. Chen of the District Court for the Eastern District of New York didn’t see it that way.
- In order for the plaintiff’s privacy to have been invaded, the disclosure of private information would have to be highly offensive to a reasonable person, Judge Chen noted. In this case, there wasn’t even the disclosure of any private information. As well, the judge couldn’t agree with the plaintiff that the defendant’s letter — sent via the U.S. Postal Service instead of via email — “would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.”
