In a case that was defended by Rick Perr at Kaufman Dolowich, a state court judge in New Jersey has granted a defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case after the defendant was accused of being deceptive by using an abbreviation for its registered alternative business name in voicemails left with the plaintiff.
The background: The lawsuit centered on voicemail messages the plaintiff received from the defendant. Each voicemail identified the caller as “ARS,” which was short for Account Resolution Services, a registered alternate of its official business name.
- The plaintiff argued the acronym failed to meaningfully disclose the caller’s identity, asserting that individuals would need to call back or visit the defendant’s website to determine who was contacting them. The plaintiff further claimed that forcing consumers to do so could lead them to provide personal information that might later be used to collect the debt.
- The case has had a long procedural history. It was originally filed in federal court in 2017 and partially reviewed by the Third Circuit, which held that plaintiffs must show a concrete injury and that an alternate business name could violate the FDCPA under certain circumstances.
- After the Supreme Court’s TransUnion decision and Article III standing developments, the matter was dismissed from federal court and re-filed in New Jersey state court.
The ruling: The court held that summary judgment for the defendant was required as a matter of law. The key issue was whether the use of “ARS” constituted a false, deceptive, or misleading representation under Section 1692e, or a failure to meaningfully disclose identity under Section 1692d(6).
- Judge Douglas H. Hurd of The Superior Court of New Jersey emphasized that ARS was a legally registered alternate business name for the defendant in New Jersey and that the acronym was a permissible abbreviation of that name. The defendant produced undisputed evidence of the registration certificate, and the court relied heavily on that proof.
- One notable excerpt from the ruling highlights the clarity of the defendant’s evidence: “Defendant has provided the Court with credible evidence, frankly, undisputed evidence… that ARS… was HRRG’s alternate business name, legally recognized in the State of New Jersey.”
- The court also cited FDCPA commentary permitting the use of “a commonly used acronym,” so long as it does not mislead the consumer. The defendant consistently used the same name in all interactions with the plaintiff.
- On whether the voicemail meaningfully disclosed identity, the court held that the message “clearly” communicated both the name (ARS) and that the call concerned an outstanding debt. The judge rejected the plaintiff’s argument that searching “ARS” might return multiple companies, stating that the FDCPA does not require eliminating every theoretical source of confusion.
- Judge Hurd noted: “Even if there are multiple ARSs… their use of this acronym is permissible under the FDCPA regardless of whether it causes confusion.”
- The harassment allegation also failed. The defendant left 67 messages over 14 months, which the court found far below thresholds identified in federal cases where harassment was established.
Read a transcript of the ruling
