1 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Misstated Summons Did Not Create FDCPA Violation

    Smith Debnam Narron Drake Saintsing & Myers, LLPCaren EnloeApril 7, 2017

    In doing so, the court focused on the “least sophisticated consumer” standard to determine whether the summons as a communication violated Section 1692e of the FDCPA which prohibits false or misleading representations.The court noted that while a communication violated section 1692e if the least sophisticated consumer would be deceived or misled by the communication, the least sophisticated consumer is “presumed to possess a rudimentary amount of information about the world and a willingness to read a collection notice with some care.” Bryant v. Kass Shuler, P.A., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27811, quoting LeBlanc v. Unifund CCR Partners, 601 F.3d 1185, 1194 (11th Cir. 2010). Moreover, the court noted that only material misrepresentations violate the FDCPA.