Reminder! Follow FDCPA Requirements Strictly
On March 1, 2013, the Third Circuit clarified the law on validation notices required under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), stressing that debt collectors should adhere not only to technical statutory requirements but also to draft language that effectively communicates such notice to consumers, many of whom are unsophisticated.
In Caprio v. Healthcare Recovery Group LLC, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4221 (3d Cir. Mar. 2, 2013), a putative class action was brought against Defendant Healthcare Recovery Group LLC for violating the “Validation of Debts” provision of the FDCPA. The Defendant sent a collection letter to Plaintiff in an attempt to collect a debt owed to his original creditor. At issue was language in the collection letter which provided: “If we can answer any questions, or if you feel you do not owe this amount, please call us toll free at 800-984-9115 or write us at the above address.” Following this language was a disclosure that the letter was “an attempt to collect a debt,” and included a notice in all caps, which stated: “(NOTICE: SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR IMPORTANT INFORMATION.)”
The reverse side of the collection letter contained the statutorily required validation notice that informed the consumer that he must dispute the validity in writing. Plaintiff contended that the collection letter was deceptive and could lead an unsophisticated consumer to believe that he could dispute the validity of the debt by calling the toll free number or by sending a letter to the Defendant.
The district court granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of the Defendant, noting that the notice satisfied the FDCPA. On appeal, the Third Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded the matter to the district court. Specifically, when the Third Circuit applied the “least sophisticated consumer standard,” the court concluded that the language in the collection letter (inviting the consumer to call the Defendant) overshadowed and contradicted the validation notice, and, therefore, violated the FDCPA.
While the law is fairly settled on requirements of validation notices under the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g, Caprio is a reminder that the language contained in notices – both validation and others – needs to pass muster not only on the basis of technical compliance, but also on the ever evolving body of consumer law, which consistently calls for language that is clear, simple and plain.
Troutman Sanders’ Financial Services Litigation Practice
Troutman Sanders’ Financial Services Litigation practice is an accomplished and experienced leader in providing litigation and regulatory advice to a broad spectrum of financial services institutions. The practice is comprised of a dedicated group of trial and regulatory lawyers who focus on resolving the array of issues that confront financial institutions. Its lawyers have years of hands-on successful experience in all areas of the trial process, coupled with in-depth banking industry and regulatory knowledge.
© TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP. ADVERTISING MATERIAL. These materials are to inform you of developments that may affect your business and are not to be considered legal advice, nor do they create a lawyer-client relationship. Information on previous case results does not guarantee a similar future result. Follow Troutman Sanders on Twitter.