A District Court judge in Minnesota has granted a defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act class-action lawsuit that was filed because the plaintiff received two collection letters from the defendant and each provided a different reference number and PIN for the plaintiff to access the debt via the defendant’s portal.
The Background: The plaintiff received two, nearly identical letters from the defendant. The first was sent in February of 2022 and the second was sent in August of the same year. Both letters included the validation language, both listed the amount of the debt — which was the same in both letters. And both listed the name of the creditor to whom the debt was owed. Both letters also included credentials for the plaintiff to access the defendant’s website portal and make a payment online.
- The difference between the two letters was the reference number and PIN to be used to access the account online was different in both letters.
- The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the different reference number and PIN was an unfair or unconscionable means to attempt to collect on the debt because it appeared as though there were two different debts.
The Ruling: There is nothing in the FDCPA that necessarily precludes a collector from using different reference numbers to describe a debt, noted Judge Paul A. Magnuson of the District Court for the District of Minnesota. An internal reference number, for example, has nothing to do with the character, amount, or legal status of the debt, which is needed to be a violation of Section 1692e(2)(A) of the FDCPA. Similarly, it’s not an unfair or unconscionable means to collect the debt, which would be a violation of Section 1692f, which says nothing about reference numbers.
- Section 1692g sets forth what must be included in a notice and there is nothing in there with respect to reference numbers either, noted Judge Magnuson.
- “It is not plausible that any consumer, confronted with the same account number, creditor information, and amount of the debt would believe that the letters involved a different debt because there was a different internal reference number and PIN,” he wrote.
