NJ Debt Collectors Win Big: Maybe The End Of Hunstein In NJ State Court?

After the Eleventh Circuit ruling in 2021 with Hunstein v. Preferred Collection Services, finding that debt collectors violated the FDCPA by using a third-party to print and mail letters, Hunstein filing mania broke out and scores of the same cases were filed nationwide.

NJ had more than its fair share of copycat suits.

While now on appeal to the NJ Supreme Court, New Jersey appellate courts issued a striking blow in 3 different appeals by reaching the same ruling: hiring a vendor to print and mail debt collector letters isn’t a federal FDCPA offense or a state law claim either.

Handled by The Sessions Firm, in Jones v. American Coradius, Hopkins v. Convergent Outsourcing, and Elshabba v. Jefferson Capital Systems, the appellate panels agreed with the collectors that the FDCPA is not violated using a printer to send letters. The court also ruled that the FDCPA’s prohibition on communicating with third parties is intended to protect consumers from disclosing information about a debt to family members, friends, or others that might cause embarrassment.

The appellate courts universally ruled that giving information needed to fill in the blanks of a collection letter was an administrative function outside the scope of privacy violations Congress sought to prevent when it enacted the FDCPA.

Chastising the consumer lawyers, the courts said: “We’ve checked your complaint and figured out that this isn’t what Congress had in mind when creating the FDCPA. Congress was actually trying to stop real abusive practices, not criminalizing the outsourcing of printing to Kinko’s.”

Unless the New Jersey Supreme Court decides this vendor printer saga deserves further attention with the pending writs for review, “Operation Hunstein” is dead in New Jersey—finally some common sense.

Wondering how to comply with letter issues? We are here to help!

‍