purchased the debt and that she they were not attempting to collect it and that she had a current outstanding balance of about thirteen hundred dollars she brought in if the c p a claimed alleging that the defendant violated sixty nine to two way which  ninety two eat ten which makes it a violation to use for any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt and six hundred eighty two f one which says it's an unfair unconscionable collection practice to notifications required by six hundred ninety two g it essentially was entitled to rely on what the creditor had told it about the debt and therefore even though she essentially a waged that the representation was false and even essentially said accepting as true that the representation was false that they were not liable under the if the c p a in this appeal asks the court essentially to to decide between to use one is the view of the third circuit and the force specific allegations there's meat on the bones here she presented the settlement offer showing that synchrony had offered to resolve her debt for a certain amount if receiving it received payment by a certain date and then she alleges that she made payment in that amount on a specific date that was prior to the date specified in the settlement offer so the reason i point that out is because i think in where the district courts have gone astray is ad in particular bill white in two thousand was issued in two thousand and then bring a lawsuit and a call to want to get rid of that and said you've got to make it not just conceivable that this could have happened but explain some puts the meat on the bones so it's actually plausible and that this is not just reciting the elements of a claim and then stating some fact generically and i think that the the in the reason i say this because there are a number of quotes from these cases that the district courts of have been following that say and an allegation alone that adepts invalid is not sufficient to state a claim one of the f t c v a or the debtors mere claim or representation that a debt was invalid is not sufficient to survive the summary judgment stage for example and it's important to key hone in on that word an allegation alone this wasn't just an allegation on write this definitely gets passed the ball to only standard terms of the specific the specificity of her complaint  as i understand it and attempt to collect a paid debt the debt that's already been paid without more isn't a violation right simply not tempting it absolutely is a violation this is the number one reason that the f t c v a was passed in this court said a particular goal in heart and seven ninety seven f third thousand nine hundred twenty three a particular goal was to address the recurring problem of debt collectors done in the wrong person or attempting to collect debts which the consumer has already paid this is and that's that's putting legislative history so that absolutely is a violation that's what that's one of the primary violation as one can do what i'm pointing out is that i think that i think that there have been cases and there been times in federal district courts where a consumer a debtor will say well this that invalid what about the debt is in you can't just say well this isn't valid it wasn't fair you know and think you're going to go to trial over the issue of whether whether it was valid in the point of minor or not and what what you're alleging is that it's invalid because it was already paid and that's enough to make a claim yes that's absolutely it's a huge it's a big part of what that the act is now the notion that the that because there is a dispute procedure that the they they said that it would be inconsistent with the f c c b s goal of ensuring debt collectors act responsibly so if we just say that you're immune from the first communication it's going to make it more likely that debt collectors don't were here simply because my client purchased a debt from another entity and thereafter sent the the plaintiff mrs van orden a letter related to that debt this wasn't just any debt collection letter however this was a significant letter because it was the first and only communication by my client second round to the plaintiff mrs van gordon it was similarly significant and important because within this letter my client second round provided the plaintiff with important statutorily required information and rights that the consumer enjoyed to sixty ninety two g of the f t c which is sometimes referred to as the validation process that all appropriate to an affirmative defense that you might be able to raise on this but not to whether or not the plaintiff states claim i assume that you're addressing the bona fide are affirmative defense your honor and i would respond by saying a knish lead that the bona fide heir only arises if there has been a violation and what we're suggesting is this letter and the fact that but as the third and fourth circuit of say that's the the statute isn't intended to let you make all kinds of claims i'm not suggesting your client was acting except bona fide but it doesn't allow a collector to make all kinds of claims and then put the burden on the consumer to dispute it so i'm not trying to stand why there's not a claim and then a method for raising an affirmative defense sure your honor and certainly our argument number one isn't that a consumer and this is not with the district court held either that a consumer has a disputed debt before they're able to pursue an f t c f t c p a allegation that's not what the district court held that's not our argument in fact even if this consumer had disputed the debt upon receiving the letter an issue within the thirty day period which is provided to dispute it and then the very next day fall the instant lawsuit that brings us here today i would still be making the same argument that this dispute doesn't change anything it doesn't retroactively now make a and as my counterpart pointed out one of the goals was to address collectors are consumers receiving collection noses on debts that might have been developed and as this court did identify and part which my counterpart brought up a way that the congress sought to address that goal was by drafting six hundred ninety two g the validation process and what the validation process does is it allows a collector to provide information to a consumer to allow the consumer to identify the debt for example the statute requires that the collector provide the correct current creditor of the debt as well as the amount of the debt from which the consumer can identify the debt and then determine whether or not the collectors information is accurate but the statute also says that if you make a false statement about an amount related to the status of a debt you've got a claim why isn't i mean your purse the statue why isn't there a claim here this is that there was a false statement about an amount related to the status of it  d i think the ensure that your honor is is to part number one congress my interpretation the c p a and i believe that the language of the statue reflects this congress did not intend that the allegation here that's brought and we're only talking about this particular not not painting with a broad brush the allegation alone that this particular letter that contained the validation notice and the only allegation is that the debt that was represented in the letter congress did not intend that that was going to be abusive collection practices where do we look to find that it's long is there's a validation notice you can say you can i identify a debt without consequence where do we look for that your honor and i believe if i don't think it applies in every situation for example let's say you throw the ad that's what congress intended that's how we should consider through the statute now are you relying on text are you relying on something else where do we look for that construction of the the construction of the f t c p a allows us to make two presumptions and i will point out where in the at the c p i i see those it allows us to presume that under the text of the f t c p a that a debt collector is permitted to presume initially in the in the early stage of collection process the validity of the dead issue subject to being told otherwise pursuant to the validation process where is that in the statute in six hundred ninety two g your honor well also what's absent from from the statute was absent from the statues the statu does not regulate creditors therefore creditors have no liability under the statute and no incentive to be to ensure that what they're providing the information they're providing along with the debts that they're either selling or assigning are valid on the same token  confirm the information before they commence collections furthermore the notice to dispute the debt is not even required to be provided to a consumer until after collections commence and even then the duty to validate the debt only arises if the consumer so disputes debt within the thirty day period and it's your duty to inquire into the validity of the dat a stablished by the fact that if you state to the consumer that he owes it and tries try to collect on it you're going to be liable so the whole scheme suggests that you've got a burden to be sure that before you send the consumer notice you've made sure that there is in fact a debt where your honor i would argue that that's not the congress intended that the dispute process provided by  g it would it would allow for a collector to provide information outside of any any duty prior to sending this letter to validate the debt it would allow them to provide information to the consumer from which the consumer can then say do i recognize this debt and do i owe and that's what happened in this case the plaintiff was able to recognize from the information provided i recognized this that this was my old synchrony debt and i recognize that i also paid that and then the letter further what this does is it allows then the consumer to communicate to the collector and say i'm disputing this debt and when the dispute happens what does the collector have to do they have to seize collections unless and until they validate the debt well or unless the consumer pays the debt right or unless the consumer pays the first second time so suppose i'm a debt collector and i and i have some understanding that the elderly will sometimes you know get a letter like this and be so frightened that they'll pay the debt or or won't remember paying it because they're old really and so i send this letter out with with all the bells and whistles in the letter to every one and i collect some money from it how do we know that's not the case here since this isn't the pleading stage and why shouldn't the claim survive the pleading stage and be as judge reginald suggested earlier  for the summary judgment mill and not reading some mail and i think this gets back to what you're asking earlier and i didn't get an opportunity opportunity to follow up on it you suggested and it has been suggested that this is an it's a false one that the the nature of the debt or the consumer's rights under the at the c p a the what about the elderly folks in my example well i would suggest that congress drafted the six hundred two g language that explained if you dispute this debt if you do not believe that you owe it here's what you can do and here's what the result will be and courts have interpreted that circuit wide that that disclosure has to be put in verbatim so i think we have to assume number one that the least sophisticated consumer is expected to understand the language in the letter of the note of the validation therefore if a consumer looks at it an elderly consumer the least sophisticated consumer they look at a letter and it has a debt and it has the proprium information in it brooke related to the characteristic of the debt i e who the creditor is partial account number was provided in police sophisticated consumer would understand this communication well i think it would be a question of fact if it was based upon whether or not the plaintiff was misled but but the you know object of stand a standard is not the pla ok so we've now posited to you that a consumer might misunderstand you said no it wouldn't but i'm asking you don't we have a factual dispute that would have to be decided as to how how  the least sophisticated consumer being told in one paragraph that they owe thirteen hundred sixty five dollars and some change and should pay it in full by using the attached remittance would understand that in light of the second paragraph which tells them they can dispute it it's the effect that the it's the purpose and the effect of the latter part of the letter your honor which is to explain to the consumer it says if you dispute that you that you owe this amount if you don't owe this amount here's what you may do and here's what will happen and the fact that congress drafted that language and is required to be in every letter we have to pursue not the least sophisticated consumer will understand what that language means that means that although it says appear that this is a debt that the collector is suggesting iow if i disagree with that for whatever reason because i don't believe it because i don't recognize it because the debt itself is not as foreign  in consequence of this argument if you look at the two cases from the eastern district of new york blatche in huebner that the district court here relied upon they were decide on summary judgment but they were decided based upon the four corners of the letter and the allegation that that that was disputed there were no othe facts that came in related to any anything else that the courts considered they also didn't didn't find the need to get to the bonafide error and they didn't consider factual later that so if you look at those cases you'll see that although it was summary judgment it might have been that nobody raised the argument or wanted to pursue a motion to dismiss interpretation of what it takes to state a claim how would the affirmative defense ever come to shore or so so for example let's say again i'm not or we're not argue my clients ar because you throw in the sixty nine to two g language all the sudden you can do whatever you want a letter this is this is a specific claim related to the amount of debt let's say for example that my client is a debt collector and a b c bank hires in the collect d debt in the letter the initial letter they're supposed to disclose a b c bank says you five hundred dollars let's say they put in their x y z bank instead and say you owe five hundred dollars i think there because they've not provided the appropriate creditor that's an issue where the consumer looks at that and they wouldn't be able to identify the debt they might remember having a debt in five hundred dollars with another bank for example a b c bank but they wouldn't be able to remember or recognize that they had a debt with x y z and therefore because it wouldn't be able to identify i believe that that type of a claim would state a claim and it would require the debt collector in that issue to then say ok well we misrepresented the name of the creditor here but that was a of the first thing i just wanted to address was where in the application in the least to skate a consumer standard it's not a question of fact some there's a circuit split on that in the second circuit though is interpreters as a matter of law so if you want to clarify that but i want to also read a quote from jacobson it's f sixteen the third eighty five at ninety second circuit case in two thousand and eight which explained that the objective that the least piscator consumer standard is an objective test  debtors from unreasonable constructions of their communications this is on unreasonable construction of the interpretation sound bizarre it is seen craddick interpretation of what they're saying opposing counsel agreed that this was an objective standard so what i'm saying is that it's to say that well anybody would any reasonable person getting this water would know why i'm allowed to just spew so it doesn't necessarily mean that i owe it that that somehow shields them from liability or that the court should interpret after c v a in a way as to not protect the people that judge bordeaux pointed out but that might just pay it because they don't remember that they paid this debt and this case it was she had the debt was paid through a law firm that was helping investigate the debt there's no expressed procedural requirement that they do so but they and there have been courts that have found that a defendant has no such duty right they don't have a duty to do so as a matter of procedure they don't have to do is do so every event but if they want to avoid making false statements and avoid attempting to collect debts that are not a valid they probably should do something about this and that is the ultimate purpose of the statute  capital credit and collection services said there's no independent duty to investigate or that they were entitled to rely on the creditors representations that was with respect to the actual verification of the debt under g b then went on to say that doesn't mean that they didn't violate hundred ninety two even making a false statement about the amount that their evidence that summary judgment showed that they were not necessarily wrong reasonably on the creditors representations so there's no duty to do anything beyond listen to what the creditor gives you and then there's that these letters went out to a lot of people and that this was not properly handle it a big way and one of the cases that you would have i would have you rely on russell versus absolute collection services