Consumer complaint received 2017-05-01
Product: Debt collection — Medical debt
Issue: Written notification about debt — Didn't receive enough information to verify debt
Company: Thunderbird Collection Specialists, Inc. (CA)

This complaint is in addition to my previous complaint about  Thunderbird Collections ille gal call recording without my consent. Please take note the attached envelope I got in the mail from them.      THIRD CIRCUIT H OLDS THAT ENVELOPE REVEALING CONSUMERS ACCOUNT NUMBER VIOLATES THE FDCPA Action Item : In light of this decision, entities collecting consumer debt should avoid the use of account numbers and/or QR codes on envelopes or within the viewing area of clear plastic envelope windows. Revealing such information on envelopes or through clear plastic envelope windows  may  expose debt collectors to liability under the FDCPA.     The  Third Circuit C  ourt of Appeals  recently held that an envelope revealing a consumers account number through a clear plastic window constitutes a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). In doing so,  the Third Circuit rev ersed the District Court of the  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  holding that the disclosure of a consumers account number is not a benign disclosure and thus constitutes a violation  of 1692f ( 8 ) of the FD CPA.     In  XXXX  v.   XXXX   XXXX  , the  Third Circuit  addressed the issue of whether the disclosure of a consumers account number on the face of a de bt collectors envelope violates 1692f ( 8 ) of the  Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  XXXX  v.  XXXX   XXXX ,  No.  XXXX ,  XXXX  WL  XXXX   (   XXXX   XXXX     XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ) ;  15 U.S.C. 1692 e t seq.     The FDCPA prohibits debt  collectors  from using unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt . 15 U.S.C. 1692f. Further, Section 1692f ( 8 ) s pecifically limits the language that debt collectors may place on envelopes sent to consumers : Using any language or symbol, other than the d ebt collectors addres s, on any envelope when communicating with a consumer by use of the mails or by telegram, except that a debt collector  may  use his business name if such name does not indicate that he is in the debt collection business. ( Emphasis add ed ).    O n   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   , Plaintiff/Appellant  XXXX   XXXX   (  Plaintiff or  XXXX  ) received a debt collection letter from   XXXX   XXXX   (  XXXX  ) regarding the collection of a debt that  XXXX  allegedly owed to  XXXX   XXXX . The name  XXXX , followed by  XXXX  account number for the alleged debt, were visible on the letter and through the clear plastic window of the envelope. In addition, the quick response (  QR ) code , which, when scanned, reveals the name Convergent, the account number, and the monetary amount of  XXXX  alleged debt, was also visible through the envelope window.1   XXXX   filed a lawsuit in th e United Stated District Court  for the    XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ,  alleging that   XXXX   violated the FDCPA by including a  QR code and  account number in a location visible through the clear plastic window of a collection letter sent to  XXXX   .   XXXX  moved for summary judgment, arguing that displaying such information in the window of the envelope was benign. The  District Court  granted summary judgment in favor of  Defendant   XXXX  under a benign language exception.  XXXX  v.  XXXX   XXXX ,  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX .  XXXX   XXXX  ( E.D.  XXXX ,  XXXX  ). The benign language exception to  Section 1692f ( 8 )  is a judicially created exception to  Section 1692f ( 8 ),   which allows a court to forgive a technical violation of Section  1692f ( 8 )  if the violation is benign in nature. T he District Court rea soned that although  XXXX  may have technically violate d 1692f ( 8 ), a  strict interpretation of the statute would contradict Congress true intent.     To reach this conclusion, t he District Court cite d to  XXXX  v.  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX , which held that a literal application of  1692 ( 8 )  would produce absurd results. No.  XXXX ,  XXXX  WL  XXXX  ( E.D.  XXXX ,    XXXX   XXXX   XXXX    ). The District Court and the  XXXX  court relied on similar applications of the benign language exception to Section  1692f ( 8 )  in  the Fifth Circuit, Eighth Circuit, Distri  ct of   XXXX , and the Central District of  XXXX .2 Ultimately, the D istrict Court held th at the mere presence of an account number does not show that the communication is related to a debt collection and [ i ] t also could not reasonably be said to humiliate, threaten, or manipulate the debtor.  XXXX  v.  XXXX   XXXX ,  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX .  XXXX  at  XXXX . Further, the  District Court fou nd tha t [ s  ] ince the random series of letters and numbers revealed through the QR code does not clearly refer to a debt, or tend to humiliate, threaten, or manipulate the consumer,  XXXX  did not violate the FDCPA. Id. at  XXXX . Accordingly, the  District Court gr anted summary judgment in favor of  XXXX .      XXXX  appealed the order granting summary judgment. On appeal,  XXXX  argued that an unambiguous reading of  1692 ( 8 )  explicitly bars the disclosure of account numbers.  XXXX  v.  XXXX   XXXX ,  XXXX ,  XXXX  WL  XXXX  (  3d Cir .  XXXX   XXXX ,  XXXX  ). Convergent maintained that a plain read ing of 1692 ( 8 )  would lead to absurd results and thus its disclosure of  XXXX  account number is allowed under a benign language excepti on. Id. at *3. In res ponse,  XXXX  argued that, even if a benign language exception applies, the disclosure of an account number is never benign. Id.     The  Third Circuit fo und that the plain language o f 1692f ( 8 ) doe s not permit  XXXX  envelope to display an account number but declined to evaluate whether  Section 1692f ( 8 )  allows for a benign language exception. Instead, th e Third Circuit determin ed that a debt collectors account number is never benign. Id.  at *4. Sp ecifically, th e Third Circuit  held th at [ t  ] he account number is a core piece of information pertaining to  XXXX  status as a debtor and  XXXX  debt collection effort. Disclosed to the public, it could be used to expose her financial predicament. Because  XXXX  disclosure implicates core privacy concerns, it can not be deemed benign. Id. Based on these considerations,  the Third Circuit fo und that  XXXX  account number is impermissible language or symbols under  1692f ( 8 )  in violation of the FDCPA. Id. a t *6 .     On    XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ,  XXXX  filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc or Panel Rehearing.     In light of this decision, entities collecting consumer debt should avoid the use of account numbers and/or QR codes on envelopes or within the viewing area of clear plastic envelope windows. Revealing such information on envelopes or through clear plastic envelope windows may expose debt collectors to liability under the FDCPA.     A  QR Code  is a barcode like image that can be read from a cell phone.    XXXX  v.  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX ,  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX ,  XXXX   (  8th Cir.  XXXX  ) ;  XXXX  v.  XXXX .  XXXX   XXXX ,  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX ,  XXXX   ( 5th  Cir.  XXXX  ) ;  XXXX  v.  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX ,  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX .  XXXX ,  XXXX  &  XXXX   XXXX   (   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  ) ;  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX ,  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX .  XXXX ,  XXXX  ( C.D.  XXXX .  XXXX  ).