Disclosing that you are a debt collector and the email you are sending is an attempt to collect a debt is not enough to make you subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, a District Court judge in Ohio has ruled, granting a defendant’s motion to dismiss. What also helped in this case was the wording used by the plaintiff to indicate how the defendant ended up attempting to collect on the debt in the first place.
The background: The plaintiff filed suit, accusing the defendant of violating the FDCPA by communicating directly with him after he had engaged legal representation. The plaintiff alleged he had incurred a debt prior to November 2023, which was later “acquired” by the defendant.
- The plaintiff’s attorney sent a notice of representation to the defendant, indicating that any further communication regarding the debt should be directed to counsel.
- The defendant allegedly continued its collection efforts, sending an email to the plaintiff attempting to collect the debt.
The ruling: The ruling from Judge Charles E. Fleming of the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio hinged on the plaintiff’s failure to plausibly allege that the defendant qualified as a “debt collector” under the FDCPA. What gave Judge Fleming pause was the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant had “acquired” the debt. This word raised a critical issue — acquiring a debt suggests ownership, Judge Fleming ruled, which disqualified the defendant from being classified as a third-party debt collector under the statute.
- A disclaimer on the email indicating the defendant was a debt collector and the email was an attempt to collect a debt was not enough to sway Judge Fleming. He ruled that such disclaimers do not automatically make a company a “debt collector” under the FDCPA, a principle further reinforced by precedents which show that such disclaimers are often used merely for cautionary purposes.
