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.
What goes around, comes around. Everything that’s old is new again. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Plaintiffs’ attorneys and consumers have a habit of dusting off old claims to see whether the passage of time, or the right judge, can turn a past loss into a different result. The latest example: a collection operation is facing a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act class action because the Model Validation Notice it sent a consumer did not include a date.
The background: The claims in this suit aren’t unlike many of the ones that have been made in all the other undated MVN suits that the industry has endured since Regulation F went into effect back in November 2020.
- The plaintiff received a notice from the defendant, seeking to collect on an unpaid medical debt of $50.
- The notice, which was not dated, included an itemization table that said:
- As of February 10, 2026, you owed: $50.00
- Between February 10, 2026 and today:
- You were charged this amount in interest: $0.00
- You were charged this amount in fees: $0.00
- You paid or were credited this amount toward the debt: $0.00
- Total amount of the debt now: $50.00
- Because the notice was undated, there is no way to determine which date “today” and “now” refer to, according to the complaint. That, the plaintiff claims, is misleading and the lack of a date makes the letter seem illegitimate.
- The lack of a date left the plaintiff feeling confused and misled, according to the complaint.
The claims: The suit accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(10), 1692f, 1692d, and 1692g(b) of the FDCPA by omitting a material term from the letter, causing ambiguity regarding the plaintiff’s 30-day validation rights and falsely representing the character and legal status of the debt, among other claims.
- The suit seeks to include anyone else living in the state of New Jersey who received an initial letter from the defendant that was not dated but was based on a particular date range between a certain date and “today.”
