However, the letter also featured three methods by which consumers could contact the credit company: a mailing address, a web address, and a phone number. The consumer sued, alleging that the letter violated FDCPA provision 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(3) by providing her with multiple options for contacting the credit company, rather than explicitly requiring that any dispute be in writing. The credit company agreed that according to Third Circuit case law, it was required to notify the consumer to dispute the debt in writing, but it argued that its letter had satisfied that burden.

[1] The ruling interpreted section 1692g(a) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), which requires debt collectors to send consumers a written validation notice “[w]ithin five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt.” See 15 U.S.C. §1692g(a). The validation notice must inform consumers that, among other things, the debt collector will verify the debt if the consumer disputes it in writing and that, upon the consumer’s written request, the debt collector will provide the name and address of the original creditor.

Finally, it contained a detachable payment slip instructing the plaintiff to mail his payment to “Synchrony Bank/JCPenney Credit Services.” Id.The plaintiff alleged that the letter was “confusing” as it purportedly failed to contain the amount of the debt owed and the name of the creditor to whom the debt was owed in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692g(a)(1) and (2), respectively. Id. at *2.

[co-author: Michelle Ng] The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) provides that, if a “debt collector” makes an “initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt,” the debt collector must provide the consumer with certain information, such as the amount of the debt, the name of the creditor, and the consumer’s right to dispute the debt. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a). However, the statute does not elaborate on the meaning of the phrase “in connection with the collection of any debt.”

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) provides that, if a “debt collector” makes an “initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt,” the debt collector must provide the consumer with certain information, such as the amount of the debt, the name of the creditor, and the consumer’s right to dispute the debt. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a). However, the statute does not elaborate on the meaning of the phrase “in connection with the collection of any debt.”Because this phrase is not defined with precision in the statute, courts often have struggled to determine what particular types of communications by debt collectors trigger the Section 1692g(a) duty.

The CFPB (referring to itself as the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection) has filed what appears to be its first amicus brief since former Director Cordray’s departure. The amicus brief was filed in Lavallee v. Med-1 Solutions, LLC, an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in which the issue before the court is whether the defendant sent the plaintiff a written validation notice containing the disclosures required by the FDCPA in 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a). The defendant claimed that it satisfied the FDCPA requirement when it sent the plaintiff two emails relating to two medical debts that each included a link to a webpage on which the plaintiff could open a “secure package” that would then take the plaintiff to another webpage on which she could open (or save to her computer) the validation notice which was in electronic Portable Document Format (PDF).

Under Section 1692g(a)(3), a debt collector’s validation notice must include "a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt . . . the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector." 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(3). Noting that this section of the FDCPA "does not mention the words 'in writing,'" the court nevertheless held that informing a debtor that a debt collector must "hear from" them within 30 days violates the law under existing precedent set by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (as opposed to the language of the FDCPA itself).

In the court’s view, the plaintiff “reads into the invitation an implication it does not create.”The plaintiff also claimed that the law firm violated the FDCPA’s validation notice requirement because, by appearing in the collection letter before the validation notice, the invitation to call caused confusion regarding how to pursue her rights under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g as described in the validation notice. The validation notice contained the statutorily-required statement regarding the collector’s obligation to obtain verification of a debt or a copy of a judgment if the consumer notifies the collector in writing within a 30-day period.

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) requires that a debt collector attempting to collect a debt notify a consumer that (1) “unless the consumer . . . disputes the validity of the debt . . . the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector,” and (2) if the consumer disputes the debt, “the debt collector will obtain [and send to the consumer] verification of the debt . . . .” 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(3) and (4). The Second Circuit recently held that compliance with these provisions does not insulate debt collectors from claims alleging that they violated the FDCPA by making false representations about debts.

Action Item: The Ninth Circuit reversed the Arizona District Court’s summary judgment in favor of a defendant debt collector in an action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In a case of first impression, the Ninth Circuit makes clear that the validation notice requirement of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a) applies to the first communication sent by any debt collector—regardless of whether it is the first or subsequent of multiple debt collectors. On July 20, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in Hernandez v. Williams, Zinman & Parham PC, held that if there are multiple debt collectors that try to collect on the same debt, each one must send the notice required by § 1692g(a) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) (15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)).