In Walker v. Greenspoon Marder, plaintiff alleged that defendant’s inclusion of a validation notice within a collection lawsuit complaint violated the FDCPA because it falsely stated the “notice was required by the FDCPA”.  Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the inclusion of the “required” language was not false, and even if technically false, it was not material or capable of misleading a consumer.  The court denied the motion, first finding that the notice was not “required” because the legal pleading was expressly exempt from the FDCPA.  The court then concluded that the language was material and capable of misleading a consumer regarding the timing to respond to the complaint by providing an alternative time to dispute the debt. The court also found the notice was deficient, because it omitted the phrase “by the debt collector” when stating the undisputed debt “will be assumed valid.”


In Church v. Accretive, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by failing to send the initial validation notice within 5 days of their initial communication with plaintiff.  Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that it was not a debt collector, but a servicer of plaintiff’s account.  The court denied the motion, finding that defendant was plausibly alleged to be a debt collector when the account was placed with defendant more than 12 months after becoming past due and after the creditor’s unsuccessful attempts to collect the debt.  

Back to News & Resources