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.
A collection law firm and debt buyer are facing a class-action lawsuit in Georgia federal court accusing them of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act over issues in a Model Validation Notice that was sent to an attorney who was purportedly not representing the plaintiff.
The background: Back in November 2024, the defendant sent a Model Validation Notice to the plaintiff. The MVN was sent to the plaintiff, care of an address that is the location of a law office. The defendant, according to the complaint, had no reason to think that the attorney was representing the plaintiff. There were also a couple of issues with the contents of the MVN.
- The itemization table used July 26, 2018 as the itemization date, and did not indicate which of the options for the itemization date was being used. The statute of limitations for prosecuting a debt is six years, according to the complaint. That meant the statute of limitations expired on July 26, 2024, about three months before the MVN was sent. The MVN did not disclose that the statute of limitations had expired and that the debt was time-barred, according to the complaint.
- As well, on the first page of the notice, it read, “We are trying to collect a debt that you owe [debt buyer] assignee of Synchrony Bank/Dick’s Sporting Goods.” Then, on the second page of the notice, it read, “Our client purchased the above-referenced account from [debt buyer] assignee of Synchrony Bank/Dick’s Sporting Goods.” The plaintiff became confused, according to the complaint, because on one page it said the defendant was collecting on behalf of the debt buyer, and then on the next page, it said the defendant’s client purchased the debt from the debt buyer.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Section 1692c of the FDCPA by sending the letter to a third party who was not representing the plaintiff at the time the letter was sent.
- The complaint also accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692e, 1692f, and 1692g of the FDCPA by sending the letter to a third party, for failing to disclose the debt was time-barred and that interest was still accruing, and stating conflicting information about the identity of the owner of the account.
- The complaint seeks to include anyone who lives in Georgia, received a collection letter from the defendant attempting to collect a debt on behalf of the debt buyer where the letter was sent to a third party who was not a representative of the plaintiff. The complaint also seeks to include two sub-classes: one who received a letter from the defendant which failed to disclose the debt was time-barred and one which included conflicting information about the owner of the debt.
