A District Court judge in Pennsylvania has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit that claims it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, ruling that using two different itemization dates in two different notices is not misleading or deceptive.
The background: The plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit last December, alleging that the defendant—a debt collector—violated Section 1692e of the FDCPA by referencing different itemization dates in two collection letters.
- The first letter, sent in May 2022, listed the itemization date as April 19, 2022. The second letter, sent over a year later in January 2024, used May 25, 2022, as the itemization date. Both letters listed the same creditor, identical balance ($2,325.51), and zero fees, interest, or payments.
- The plaintiff argued that this discrepancy would mislead the least sophisticated consumer into thinking the letters referred to two separate debts, thereby confusing them about their rights and obligations.
The ruling: Judge Mia Roberts Perez of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed the case with prejudice, concluding the difference in dates was not material under the FDCPA’s deceptive practices provisions.
- The Court found that: “The chronological order of the dates precludes the possibility that the most recent itemization… is not up to date.”
- Judge Perez emphasized that to violate Section 1692e, a misstatement must be material, meaning that it is capable of influencing the decision-making of the least sophisticated consumer. The judge noted that nothing in the letters suggested a different obligation, especially since the creditor, amount owed, and all line items remained the same.
- The Court concluded that a consumer who “read with care” would not be confused, and dismissed any further opportunity to amend the complaint, calling it “futile.”
