Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Class Action – FDCPA Violation – Plain Language

By: Derek Hawkins//March 2, 2020//

Class Action – FDCPA Violation – Plain Language

By: Derek Hawkins//March 2, 2020//

Listen to this article

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Neal Preston v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.,

Case No.: 18-3119

Officials: RIPPLE, ROVNER, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Class Action – FDCPA Violation – Plain Language

Neal Preston brought this putative class action in which he claimed that Midland Credit Management, Inc. (“Midland”), had sent him a collection letter that violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692–1692p. Specifically, he claimed that the words “TIME SENSITIVE DOCUMENT” on the envelope violated § 1692f(8)’s prohibition against “[u]sing any language or symbol,” other than the defend‐ ant’s business name or address, on the envelope of a debt collection letter. He also claimed that these words, and other language employed in the body of the letter, were false and deceptive, in violation of § 1692e(2) and (10).

On Midland’s motion, the district court dismissed the complaint. The district court noted that the plain language of § 1692f(8) prohibited any writing on the envelope, but nevertheless concluded that there was a benign‐language exception to the statutory language. Because the language “TIME SENSITIVE DOCUMENT” did not create any privacy concerns or expose Mr. Preston to embarrassment, the district court held that it fell within this exception. The district court found no merit with respect to Mr. Preston’s claims under § 1692e.

We now reverse in part and affirm in part. We conclude that the language of § 1692f(8) is clear, and its application does not lead to absurd results. To the contrary, the prohibition of any writing on an envelope containing a debt collection letter represents a rational policy choice by Congress. Consequently, we conclude that the district court erred in dismissing Mr. Preston’s claim under § 1692f(8). However, we agree with the district court that the language on the envelope and in the letter does not violate § 1692e and, therefore, affirm the dismissal of the claims brought under that section.

Affirmed

Full Text


Derek A Hawkins is trademark corporate counsel for Harley-Davidson. Hawkins oversees the prosecution and maintenance of the Harley-Davidson’s international trademark portfolio in emerging markets.

Polls

What kind of stories do you want to read more of?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests