FDCPA 1692 e Podunk State Law Requires Us To:

[antiquedave]

"A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:"

We all have seen those notices on the back of the dunning letters outlining specific state disclosures that must be given to residents of their particular states.

Most of us probably brush right by the ones that do not specifically address the State we live in, and that could be a mistake.

It might be worthwhile to look a little more closely at the language they are using in their attempt to avoid a State claim, it might be considered deceptive and misleading and they may wind up creating a FDCPA liability.

Would the least sophisticated consumer read the rights outlined for a particular state and draw the reasonable conclusion that the right only applied to that state's residents?

Don't jump the gun on this, Yes they outline additional rights for that States residents but does their language and titles make it seem that only residents of PODUNK have the right to request that the collector cease collection if the debtor sends a cease and desist? (as example)

A collector would need to be very clear here, some of the cases that have found for the (debtor) plaintiff

have said that when the collector has not made it perfectly clear that the rights enumerated under the State information are specifically for the residents of said state that they may cross the line into a misleading and or deceptive statement that confuses the least sophisticated debtor about their rights.

Podunk state laws require us to notify Podunk State residents that they have the (additional?) right to etc etc.

The following 3 cases found that the notices related to Colorado Law was a misrepresentation and violated FDCPA.

Jenkins v Union Corp

Borcherding Dittloff v Transworld Systems

Farley v Diversified Services

On the other hand in White v Goodman the court found for the defendant and got pretty snickety about what they thought about disengenuous readings and consumer attorneys.

So there is some division here as to whether or not there is a violation that needs to be checked against the courts in your circuit.

[WhoCares1000]

The way this works is that Federal Law (in this case, the FDCPA) is the minimum protections afforded consumers. This means in a state without any laws, the FDCPA is the protector. A state law can offer more protection than the minimum and when a state does, the state law applies.

[antiquedave]

Ran across a reference to Withers v Equifax Risk Management as that found the State notices for Massachusetts and Colorado sent in a dunning letter to a Illinois resident was misleading and unfair.

Can't find a link yet to the actual case.

[BV80]

Withers v. Equifax Risk Management is a 1999 case. The White v. Goodman case in 2000 from the 7th Circuit trumps it.

Withers v Equifax Risk Management - Google Scholar