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.
This is one of those times where a complaint is highlighted because it is attempting to be used as a cautionary tale to the industry. In this case, there is a lot of background and context that is missing — which could impact the value of this case as a cautionary tale, but even with a diminished value, it’s a message that bears repeating. A collection operation is facing claims it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and state law in Georgia because it allegedly misled a consumer with respect to whether one of the medical debts in question would or could appear on the plaintiff’s credit report.
The background: The plaintiff and a representative of the defendant were having a conversation last May after the plaintiff had reviewed her credit report and identified some tradelines she did not recognize. The representative informed the plaintiff that it was attempting to collect on four unpaid medical accounts that had a total balance of more than $3,000.
- The plaintiff said that she only saw three items related to the debt on her credit report.
- The defendant replied that the amount of the fourth debt was less than $100 and that it was eligible to be reported on her credit report, according to the complaint.
- This led the plaintiff to seek the advice of an attorney regarding the defendant’s collection attempt.
- Since 2023, the major credit reporting agencies have not included medical debts under $500 on consumers’ credit reports — which is a policy change that is well known by the collection industry, according to the complaint.
The claims: The plaintiff is accusing the defendant of violating Sections 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(5), 1692e(8), and 1692e(10) of the FDCPA because even a least sophisticated consumer would have been misled
- The plaintiff is also accusing the defendant of violating provisions of the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act.
