Complaint Accuses Collector of Violating Reg F Because of Size of Opt-Out Disclosure in Email

EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is part of a series that is sponsored by WebRecon. WebRecon identifies serial plaintiffs lurking in your database BEFORE you contact them and expose yourself to a likely lawsuit. Protect your company from as many as one in three new consumer lawsuits by scrubbing your consumers through WebRecon first. Want to learn more? Call (855) WEB-RECON or email today! Thanks to WebRecon for sponsoring this series.

A complaint has been filed, accusing a company of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Regulation F for not making the opt-out disclosure in an email sent to a consumer clear and conspicuous enough and for mentioning in the email that paying a debt “may improve” the individual’s credit score even though the debt was not being reported to a credit reporting agency.

A copy of the complaint in the case of Zamot v. InDebted can be accessed by clicking here.

The plaintiff received an email from the defendant. The email included information about the debt and included the following statement: “Resolving your balance may improve your credit score and boost your financial fitness.” At the bottom of the email was a statement: “Click here to opt out of further emails for this account.” The word “here” was a hyperlink.

The plaintiff filed suit, first accusing the defendant of not having a “clear and conspicuous” opt-out message in the email, because the statement was “in the smallest font utilized in the email.” In total, the plaintiff received eight emails from the defendant, each of which contained a similar opt-out message.

The plaintiff also obtained copies of her credit report because “the language regarding improvement of the Plaintiff’s credit score caused her concern that this account with a balance owing of $64.00 had been reported to her credit file,” according to the complaint. The plaintiff did not see a entry from the defendant or the original creditor on her credit report.

The defendant is accused of violating Sections 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(10), and 1692f of the FDCPA and Section 1006.6(e) of Regulation F.

Check Also

Wash. Appeals Court Overturns Ruling for Collector

The Court of Appeals for the State of Washington has reversed a lower court’s ruling …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.