A District Court judge in New York has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case, ruling that the communication alleged to have violated the statute does not meet the threshold for being a communication in connection with the collection of a debt.
The Background: The plaintiff sent an email to the defendant seeking copies of a document. The defendant replied, asking for more information to help identify the document in question, including an account number. The plaintiff replied that he didn’t have the account number but provided an address, which the defendant was unable to use to find the account. The plaintiff sent another email, saying the first address was incorrect and provided another address. The defendant replied and email the document in question. At the bottom of the defendant’s reply was the statement, “Selene Finance LP is a debt collector attempting to collect a debt and any information obtained will be used for that purpose.”
- The plaintiff filed suit, arguing that the disclaimer was a misrepresentation because the contents of the email had nothing to do with attempting to collect on a debt.
The Ruling: There are six reasons why the email sent to the plaintiff by the defendant does not constitute a communication in connection with the collection of a debt, noted Judge Anne M. Nardacci of the District Court for the Northern District of New York. Those reasons are:
- The email doesn’t specify that the account belongs to the plaintiff;
- The email doesn’t identify any dollar amount owed;
- The email doesn’t direct the plaintiff to make a payment to a particular address;
- The email doesn’t reference the FDCPA;
- The email doesn’t inform the plaintiff that he had to dispute the debt’s validity within a certain period of time; or
- threaten consequences if Plaintiff fails to pay a debt.
Even using the least sophisticated consumer standard, there is nothing to indicate that the communication could be plausibly interpreted as being sent in connection with the collection of a debt, Judge Nardacci ruled.
