Consumer Protection – FDCPA

Listen to this article

Where a dunning letter falsely stated that the creditor could recover attorney fees, summary judgment was improperly granted to the creditor on the debtor’s FDCPA claim.

“[T]he statement at issue was not only false, but misleading. Further, the letter is misleading on its face, and extrinsic evidence is unnecessary. CDA baldly argues that the attorney fees
statement is not plainly misleading, and thus extrinsic evidence is necessary to illustrate confusion. But assuming that attorney fees could not, under any circumstances, have been
assessed against Lox in an action brought by CDA—which we must, since they did not argue otherwise—there is no question of interpretation remaining. To believe the letter was to believe a
statement that, in reality, was false. The only question remaining would be whethe the hypothetical, unsophisticated consumer is aware of the ‘American Rule,’ and thus would disbelieve
CDA’s assertion. This is not the type of legal knowledge we can presume the general public has at its disposal. We therefore find CDA’s language to be misleading on its face.”

Reversed and Remanded.

11-2729 Lox v. CDA, Limited

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Gorman, Mag. J., Flaum, J.
Full Text