Opinion ID: 602804
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Violation of Section 1692e

Text: 41 In the proceedings below, the district court based its decision to grant summary judgment on its determination that Jackson had violated subsection (3) of § 1692e. The court determined that Jackson violated subsection (3) when he approved collection letters which falsely implied that he had been retained for the purpose of collecting a particular person's debt. Jackson now contends that the court erred in holding that such conduct violated subsection (3). Specifically, Jackson insists that the letters at issue here complied with subsection (3) because they accurately state that he is an attorney and that the letters are from him. He also argues that the letters' overstatement of the degree of an attorney's involvement in individual debtors' cases does not violate subsection (3) or any other provision of § 1692e. We find these arguments unpersuasive. 42 At the outset, it should be emphasized that the use of any false, deceptive, or misleading representation in a collection letter violates § 1692e--regardless of whether the representation in question violates a particular subsection of that provision. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692e (specifying certain prohibited acts [w]ithout limiting the general application of the foregoing language). Given the broad sweep of this provision, it would be possible to uphold the district court's decision to grant summary judgment for the plaintiff even if the facts did not establish a violation of subsection (3). We find, however, that the district court properly concluded that the record establishes a violation of subsection (3). We note that the record also establishes a violation of subsection (10) and of the general ban in § 1692e. 43 First, the use of Jackson's letterhead and signature on the collection letters was sufficient to give the least sophisticated consumer the impression that the letters were communications from an attorney. This impression was false and misleading because in fact Jackson did not review each debtor's file; he did not determine when particular letters should be sent; he did not approve the sending of particular letters based upon the recommendations of others; and he did not see particular letters before they were sent--indeed, he did not even know the identities of the persons to whom the letters were issued. In short, the fact that Jackson played virtually no day-to-day role in the debt collection process supports the conclusion that the collection letters were not from Jackson in any meaningful sense of that word. Consequently, the facts of this case establish a violation of subsection (3) of § 1692e. See Masuda v. Thomas Richards & Co., 759 F.Supp. 1456, 1460-61 (C.D.Cal.1991) (finding violation of subsection (3) where collection letter falsely implied that attorney had personally reviewed debtor's file); cf. Anthes v. Transworld Systems, Inc., 765 F.Supp. 162, 166-67 (D.Del.1991) (finding no violation of subsection (3) where collection letter was sent directly from attorney's office and attorney reviewed information provided by debt collection agency to independently determine whether one of his letters should be sent). 44 We also note that the language used in the collection letters was sufficient to cause the least sophisticated consumer to believe that Jackson himself had considered individual debtors' files and had made judgments about how to collect individual debts. The letters stated that Jackson was suggesting certain measures be taken to further implement the collection of your seriously past due account; that Jackson had received instructions from his client to pursue this matter to the furthest extent we deem appropriate; that Jackson had told his client that it could lawfully undertake collection activity to collect your debt; and that Jackson had scheduled Clomon's debt for immediate review and/or further action as deemed appropriate. In short, the collection letters would have led many consumers, and certainly the least sophisticated consumer, to believe that an attorney had personally considered the debtor's case before the letters were sent. This language was false or misleading because, as noted above, Jackson played virtually no day-to-day role in the debt collection process--and certainly did not engage in any discussion with NCB or AFP about how to collect Clomon's debt. Consequently, the facts of this case establish a violation of subsection (10) of § 1692e. See Pipiles v. Credit Bureau of Lockport, Inc., 886 F.2d 22, 25-26 (2d Cir.1989) (finding violation of subsection (10) where collection letter falsely implied that some action would be taken); see also Gaetano, 774 F.Supp. at 1415 (finding violation of subsection (10) where defendant attempted to collect a debt when prohibited from doing so by state law). 45 In sum, the facts of this case provide ample grounds for the district court's conclusion that Jackson violated § 1692e. It is clear that Jackson's conduct constituted a violation of subsection (3), which prohibits the false representation that a collection letter is a communication ... from an attorney. The record also establishes that Jackson's conduct constituted a violation of subsection (10), which prohibits [t]he use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect a debt from a consumer. Finally, we note that the misrepresentations contained in these letters could also be characterized as violations of the general ban in § 1692e on the use of any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. 1 46 In reaching this conclusion, we are mindful of the appellant's concern regarding the economic necessity of mass mailing in the debt collection industry. It is apparent that mass mailing may sometimes be the only feasible means of contacting a large number of delinquent debtors, particularly when many of those debtors owe relatively small sums. But it is also true that the FDCPA sets boundaries within which debt collectors must operate. No mass mailing technique is permissible--regardless of how effective it might be--if that technique constitutes a false, deceptive, or misleading communication. As we have found here, the use of an attorney's signature on a collection letter implies that the letter is from the attorney who signed it; it implies, in other words, that the attorney directly controlled or supervised the process through which the letter was sent. We have also found here that the use of an attorney's signature implies--at least in the absence of language to the contrary--that the attorney signing the letter formed an opinion about how to manage the case of the debtor to whom the letter was sent. In a mass mailing, these implications are frequently false: the attorney whose signature is used might play no role either in sending the letters or in determining who should receive them. For this reason, there will be few, if any, cases in which a mass-produced collection letter bearing the facsimile of an attorney's signature will comply with the restrictions imposed by § 1692e. 47