Holding that, because the district court had correctly found that the defendant's duty to reinvestigate a dispute under § 1681i was never triggered, the plaintiff a fortiori could not prove a willful violation of § 1681i
Holding that a notice claiming a right to collect and/or share information about the debtor “to the extent permitted by law” was misleading because there are no circumstances under which the law actually permits dissemination of a debtor's information
Holding that a letter threatening foreclosure while also offering to discuss “foreclosure alternatives” qualified as a communication related to debt collection activity within the meaning of § 1692e
Holding that mass-produced dunning letters bearing facsimile of attorney's signature created false and misleading impression that communications were "from" attorney
15 U.S.C. § 1692 Cited 15,335 times 144 Legal Analyses
Finding that abusive debt-collection practices lead to "personal bankruptcies," "marital instability," "loss of jobs," and "invasions of individual privacy"