Opinion ID: 804520
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Overshadowing

Text: McMurray contends that the notice was overshadowed by the following: There was a “threat” of bad credit that was placed prominently, while the notice language was at the bottom of the letter; there were four listed examples of bad-credit consequences in capitalized lettering; and the demand to “timely validate” was inconsistent with the Section 1692g(a) notice. We have already determined that the “timely validate” language is not inconsistent with the letter’s notice. While overshadowing is a different inquiry than inconsistency, we conclude that McMurray’s overshadowing argument as to the “timely validate” language fails for similar reasons. 7 Case: 11-10291 Document: 00511922326 Page: 8 Date Filed: 07/16/2012 No. 11-10291 The supposed threat falls in the category of “letters [that] encourage debtors to pay their debts by informing them of the possible negative consequences of failing to pay,” words that do not overshadow the required notice language. Durkin v. Equifax Check Servs., Inc., 406 F.3d 410, 417-18 (7th Cir. 2005). This is because “one way to encourage someone with a true dispute to come forward and resolve that dispute is to inform him of the possible negative consequences of his continued inaction.” Id. at 418 n.7. “Not only does this encouragement promote payment of valid debts, it also promotes disclosing genuine claims of invalid debts (such as . . . demonstrating the debt resulted from a forgery).” Id. “Promoting final resolution of such matters, either way, is inherently beneficial.” Id. The letter in this case essentially provided such warnings and nothing more. Thus, the notice language in ProCollect’s letter is not overshadowed by the letter’s bad-credit warnings. We also conclude that the physical attributes of ProCollect’s Section 1692g(a) notice do not cause an overshadowing. The notice is located on the same page as the language contested by McMurray, is in bold typeface (unlike the contested language), and of the same size and font as the rest of the letter. Also significant is that the notice is located immediately above the line provided for tearing off the payment form, and thus, by this spacial proximity, provided visual confirmation that payment was not the only option. Cf. Sims v. GC Servs. L.P., 445 F.3d 959, 963-64 (7th Cir. 2006) (concluding statement on letter’s front in prominent, red, bold, capital lettering that “important consumer information” on back was not overshadowed by text on front asking for prompt payment of debts, despite notice text on back being more difficult to read than text on front). ProCollect’s collection letter was not inconsistent with and did not overshadow the letter’s Section 1692g(a) notice. Therefore, a least-sophisticated or unsophisticated consumer would not be confused by the letter. AFFIRMED. 8