Class Action Filed Over Blank Itemization Table Line Items in MVN

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.

DISCLAIMER: This article is based on a complaint. The defendant has not responded to the complaint to present its side of the case. The claims mentioned are accusations and should be considered as such until and unless proven otherwise.

A class-action complaint has been filed against a collection agency, accusing it of violating Regulation F and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it did not include $0.00 in the Model Validation Notice’s itemization table for the interest and fees entries.

A copy of the complaint, filed in the District Court for the Southern District of New York, can be accessed using case number 22-cv-07424.

Backstory: The plaintiff received a validation notice in regard to an unpaid medical debt. Here is what the itemization table looked like:

By leaving the entries blank for the amount of interest or fees that may have been added to the balance, the defendant allegedly was using a “collection tactic to coerce the Plaintiff to pay, or at least sow enough confusion creating an inability to determine what course of action would be in her best interests,” according to the complaint.

The Details: The defendant is accused of violating Section 1692e, 1692e(2) and 1692e(10) of the FDCPA by stating that interest, fees, payments, and credits were unquantifiable, Section 1692f for allegedly using unfair or unconscionable means in connection with the collection of any debt, and Section 1692g for allegedly misrepresenting the amount of the debt.

  • The plaintiff wants to include anyone else who received a similar notice from the defendant where those line items were left unitemized.

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Your email address will not be published.