U.S. District Court Dismisses FDCPA Putative Class Action

The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey recently dismissed a putative class action against a debt collection company for failure to state a claim, holding the company’s notices regarding unpaid debts did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

The plaintiff claimed that the company’s debt collection notice letters violated § 1692g(a)(3) of the FDCPA by failing to notify debtors that debt disputes must be in writing to be valid, and § 1692e(10) by using deceptive language that led debtors to believe they could orally dispute their debts.  Specifically, the plaintiff argued that language in the company’s notice letter—stating “[s]hould you have any questions regarding this account, please feel free to call us” and “[w]e look forward to hearing from you”—overshadowed and contradicted the language required by the FDCPA in the preceding paragraph, which explained that the debtor must notify the company in writing of any disputes of the validity of the debt being collected.

The court disagreed with the plaintiff and concluded that the notice letter clearly and adequately provides an unsophisticated debtor with notice of her rights as required by the FDCPA.  The court explained that the challenged language did not overshadow or contradict the FDCPA-required language that debt disputes must be in writing because it merely invited a consumer to call with general questions about her account.  The challenged language also appeared in the same font size and typeface as the FDCPA-required language.  The court relied on this reasoning to resolve the claims under both § 1692g(a)(3) and § 1692e(10), and accordingly granted the debt collection company’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

The case, Robinson v. Northland Grp., Inc., is available here.