A District Court judge in New York has halved the statutory award available under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to an individual who sued after the defendant sent a text message attempting to collect on a debt to a client of the plaintiff, ruling that doing it only once made it less egregious than it could have been.
The background: The case was originally filed back in 2021 and accused the defendant of sending a text message attempting to collect on a debt to a client of the plaintiff.
- While the case was originally filed more than four years ago, the plaintiff waited several years before filing for a default judgment, seeking $1,000 in statutory damages available under the FDCPA and reasonable attorney’s fees.
- The text message that was sent said, “[plaintiff’s name], your account was transferred to [defendant]. Current balance is $1,203.90. Our client is offering an interest free, monthly payment plan as low as $50.00 a month, or they are willing to reduce the balance to $601.95 as a one[]time payoff. For more information, please call [phone number]. Communication is from a Debt Collector. To opt out reply STOP[.]”
- The plaintiff claim the client who received the text message was not responsible for the debt and that the plaintiff did not give the defendant permission to discuss the debt with the client.
The ruling: It was clear to Judge Lawrence J. Vilardo of the District Court for the Western District of New York that text message stated that the plaintiff owed a debt and that the communication was not for the purpose of obtaining location information. For the purposes of obtaining a default judgment, the plaintiff established a violation of the FDCPA, Judge Vilardo ruled.
- When it came to determining the damages, though, Judge Vilardo chose not to award the maximum allowed under the statute.
- Looking at other cases, in which courts have reserved awarding the maximum $1,000 penalty for violations that are “particularly egregious,” Judge Vilardo noted that one text message doesn’t reach that threshold.
- The defendant’s “violation consisted of only one text message and ‘nothing (other than a conclusory assertion … in the [c]omplaint indicates that [the communication with [the plaintiff’s] client was intentional,” Judge Vilardo wrote.
- That being said, the plaintiff’s privacy was invaded, and as such, the violation entitled him to $500.
- The plaintiff was also requested to submit his motion for attorney’s fees.
