and others against full time friedman and who watch the number fifteen to eighteen fifty nine will hear from straight  notice is a violation defendant fulton friedman sends nine hundred thousand standard form collection letters that do not identify who the current creditor is as such most tech collectors don't have a problem doing this they simply state merely stated please be advised that the reference to counter has been transferred from acid acceptance to fulton friedman what does that mean one obvious meaning it's the first one that shows up under transfer in the dictionary i debt is now owned by fulton friedman district court acknowledged that that was a likely meaning of the statement and that there was no clear disclosure of who on the debt it stated quote full effigies letters do not express the identify which entity currently owns the purported debts they do not actually label either entity as the owner of the purported debts close quote district court nevertheless granted summary judgment for the defendants holding that a disclosure specifically required by statute is not material and that it was necessary that we show the actual reaction of consumers to the letter even if the statement regarding the require disclosure item is facially ambiguous neither of these points is correct with respect to materiality we start with the proposition that congress requires the information and has a right to do so it's important the information is in fact important there is a major problem with fraudulent debt collection the federal trade commission has brought at least seven cases against some twenty people who get information from court files credit right kurds who are similar sources and write to people or call people asking them to pay debts without any legal basis the defendant in this case sent a very suspicious letter the geneva last letter is sent on a debt that had been the subject of a lawsuit that mr nieto is one she didn't owe anything so why is a letter sent out asking that she in the circumstances suggests something very fishy the government has issued statements saying that a consumer who gets a letter or call from somebody that their natural milieu with should insist on the provision of the six ninety two g notice stating who the current creditor is and ascertain what the chain of title is and can tick the people to determine who if anyone is authorized to collect the debt the omission or lack of a clear statement as to who the current creditor is prevents the string being done well how does that happen here because i think i understand your argument being that the requirement is congressionally mandated and that's by definition material because it's congressionally required but if we actually look at the letters here the identity of the current owner was not withheld it was simply ambiguously stated and so i don't and i see the peril of potential fraud as the motivation for this but under the circumstances that we have here i don't really see how there is a risk of fraud even given the suspicious to pay the right person they may have a judgment against them it draws one percent interest in illinois they get this in big us letter the which does not clearly disclose who owns the debt it could be ass it could be fulton could be a third party who has acquired the debt and hired full they they stop an inquiry or they simply do nothing their liability increases unnecessarily so yes regardless of the precise reaction of the consumer to the failure to disclose the failure to disclose is material particularly when government agencies say it is important find out what it is check out that the person trying to collect is authorized this is supposed to be violent terribly provided it should not require investigation or inquiry by the consumer so regardless of the precise reaction it is important and it does have the potential to harm the consumer it also harms law enforcement efforts there is a effort here to document who owns stats who is authorized to collect them and it is supposed to be violent terribly provided that was not done in this case and it does create issues judges in collection courts have noted that it is that there may be a problem with people looking up court records and then contacting the consumers and asking them to pay money and when you get that kind of absolute vacation and it's made known to the consuming public by the government yes you can have it and they had burst in pac regardless of whether the demand is ten and anything to your case not particularly i think in this case they're largely humility of i'm inclined to agree with that because under those circumstances the defense has a much stronger argument about needing evidence of actual confusion or deception i would say i would do venture to state that where the problem is a require disclosure item the burden is on the die collector to provide that information clearly violation a statement of the debt has been transferred to somebody who doesn't own it is also a problem i would like to briefly comment on the issue raised as to the liability of an asset generally under the f t c p a a principle that collector is vicariously liable for the conduct of its agent a debt collector in this case will friedman the defendant relies on the clark case which was a very strange case involving a kinder situation that someone sought to hold the attorney liable for the conduct of the client and of course that would require some actual showing of involvement or authorization which was not made out in the facts of that case in this case s acceptance recovery services an affiliate of asset actually did review these letters and for some reason released them but the critical i thought the critical point from your point of view and of the third circuit's approach was simply that asset acceptance retain ownership and is itself a debt collector that is correct or if you really don't need more than that that is correct although there is more of that unless your honour's have some questions i'd say the rest of my time plainly false misleading or deceptive or confusing under the f t c p a as to the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed second because the letters are not plainly confusing under the f confused and third and no such showing was made in this case and third even if the letters are found to be problematic under the f t c they are not material and i don't understand those two requires the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed in this case the name of that creditor to whom the debt was owed is in the letter it's on the letter but not as the current predator correct that the language current creditors not use your honor but this court in the barn's case a sixty ninety two g a one k said that the amount of the debt the specific term the amount of the debt under the f t c is not required in every and every letter what about you it ambiguous disclosure which is what it looks like we are or she was a category three what i call category three locks case under this court's lax decision as you know is a letter plainly straightforward category one no deceptive and misleading not if there's just of straight failure to comply with a mandated disclosure which cannot be made m b u asli you know you've got it i've read this and i have to guess i have no idea who let me get back to that you a case to finish my thought on that first your honor to a this court is destroyed as having incoherent and contradictory language it was a classic category three case in this case when you look at the letters as the district court appropriately found yes we agree the term creditor to whom the debt is owed is not in the letter but that's not the standard in this court the standard set forth in mcmillan the seventh circuit case was is the letter confusing and that million says in order to understand whether the language is confusing you need to follow the principles of sixteen ninety two what was the violation and mcmillan mcmillan the issue was is the letter just had phraseology like is the letter is this person just honest it was a sixty ninety two eat case ok well that that's not what we have here we have here a mandated disclosure a mandated disclosure that this is correct your honor but this court in bahrain said that the precise language amount of the debt doesn't have to be used so in this case if when you look at the letter there's enough in disha in the letter itself to explain or at least create an ambiguity if you look at the letter dylan doesn't get away with any ambiguous disclosure what's required like the amount of the getting into who the check should be made out because in this court your honor the treatment is we can't assign meaning to how the unsophisticated consumers are going to understand that the court has the prerogative to decide under category three that the language of plainly confusing but if there's a question what this court has said repeatedly is district court judges are not an appropriate proxy for the unsophisticated consumer so in this case the question is how would the unsophisticated consumer understand this letter and that's why this court in the past it said you need to submit some objective extrinsic evidence this co very lenient to debtors by creating this category to the potential for ambiguity other courts treat under the least sophisticated consumer and say you know what we can only look at the letter but in this court allows a plaintiff to present evidence and in this case what the district court did when it did neither motion and judgment on the pleadings were said this is a close call in fact defendants you could have one but i'm constrained i can't sit as a proxy for the unsophisticated consumer go out develop your case the plaintiffs in this case made a tactical decision not to develop the case they insist they still rely on the letter itself and when you look at the letter itself it says acid acceptance is you still owns the debt that's the creditor right correct so how do i know that but by the terms of the letter your honor if you read the letter as a whole we believe it's it doesn't say precisely it not doesn't say that doesn't come close to saying when then you get to the question materiality your honor which peterson raise which is is would this have a tendency to influence the unsophisticated consumers decision and how to respond sure who i make the check out well if you made the check out to full frame in a glassy or acid acceptance there would be no harm how consumer if if full free money in fact is legit right there's no indication here that the district judge was at all aware of this risk of authorized to collect right you're entitled to to do that that in fact that in the letter says your honor says call me no the letter says if you have a dispute about the debt it gives a mandatory language under the f t c right which says if you dispute this debt here's how you do it and when the f t c in the c f p be issued their bulletins regarding fraud they were talking about calling scams and when they gave their guidance they said one of the things you need to ask this person on the phone is for  validation of the debt what is ethen do in this letter they tell the consumer the specific statutory rights about that and the ability to dispute the debt and ask for validation so the concern about this fraudulently you know  collector is this is not this case it's not this letter this letter it's not that it's not this letter but that's the reason for the requirement right know the reason for their requirements is to make sure that the right person is being collected on and that they're not paying a debt that they've already paid i'm sorry but the right person is being collected from so that the obligation to be collecting from the right debtor the obligation is six hundred ninety two it sixty ninety two g is to make sure that you provide information regarding the debt so the debtor one knows what the debt is about in this case the name of the creditor the person to whom them who lent the money is in each letter they know from this letter who loaned the money they would about the fact that the consumers weren't at risk here in this case would apply even if the name of the current account owner had been omitted completely left off assets entirely from this letter because a happens to be the case that the law firm here was a legitimate agent of the current owner and so they were committing fraud so your argument all would address i think  a really completely manifest violation where they just left off the account corner entirely as long as the person purporting to be the agent of the comic owner really was the agent of an account owner the consumer is not really facing any per real peril right the real peril in this situation is where someone gets a letter let's say you have an american express a debt and you get a letter from a debt collector let's also say of a bank of america day and you get a letter from a debt collector who never heard from before and all it is this is from debt collector it doesn't say bank of america doesn't say merican express in that situation you don't know whether to dispute the account if you don't know which debt it's about or congress did say house of partial guard not an conduct and it's to revive information to make an intelligent choice in this case we believe based on the letter that this is not abusive conduct and intelligence source could have been made and no harm would have been suffered had they want to s honor when dealing with a specific disclosure requirement i think there has to be a clear response to it that informs the consumer i think it is clear from these letters that that is not present there is no specific format that's required it would be permissible and was in fact done by folk in friedman and other letters to express in prose the owner of your dead ass acceptance has retained this firm to collect from you would cetera et cetera that's ok i think sure a case is actually a closer case for the debt collector than this case there it contained the amount but i stated to obtain current balance information call and the ambiguity is if the amount is as stated what do you need to call for or are you trying to collect a larger balance with your informed orally here you have some descriptive information and a statement of the debt has been transferred the most