Seventh Circuit Affirms Rulings on Debt Collection Notices

29 January 2014 Consumer Class Defense Counsel Blog

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in a consolidated appeal of four separate cases, recently affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of four separate cases for failure to state claims under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). In Gruber v. Creditors’ Protection Service, Inc., Nos. 13-2084, 13-2164, 13-2297 and 13-2351, __ F.3d __ (7th Cir., Jan. 23, 2014), the appellate court considered whether a minor deviation from the statutory language of FDCPA Section 1692g(a)(4) in collection notices resulted in a violation of the FDCPA.

Section 1692g(a)(4) requires debt collectors to provide consumers a “statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.” In the four cases presented, the notices failed to include the phrase “…that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed….” The consumer plaintiffs contended that this omission created risks that an unsophisticated consumer who may wish to exercise his or her rights would fail to properly do so, and may be misled to request verification instead of to dispute the debt.

The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, finding, as a matter of law, that the debt collectors’ notices complied with FDCPA Section 1692g(a)(4), notwithstanding the omitted clause, and “treat[ing] a request for verification as a dispute within the meaning of [FDCPA].”

In addition, one of the debt collection notices included the following statement (which is not set forth in the FDCPA) immediately above the statutorily-mandated language: “We believe you want to pay your just debt.” The plaintiff in that case argued that the use of the words “just debt” implied that judgment was already obtained against the consumer and could improperly dissuade a consumer from disputing or requesting validation of a debt, in violation of the FDCPA.

The Court of Appeals ruled against this argument, finding that the “just debt” clause is neutral in effect and does not direct the consumer to take any action.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services