This has been a hot issue in the industry for a while now, and it seems that we are no closer to a resolution. Similar to prior rulings, the District of New Jersey (D.N.J.) has yet again ruled that a letter containing validation notice language that tracks section 1692g(a) of the FDCPA and includes the debt collector’s contact information does not confuse a consumer into thinking that he can dispute the debt orally. The case is Martinez v. Diversified Consultants, Inc., No. 17-cv-11923 (D.N.J. Jan. 24, 2019).
However, another court within the Third Circuit’s umbrella, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (E.D. Pa.), continues to find that validation language that tracks the FDCPA confuses a consumer into thinking that a dispute can be made orally. Check out the insideARM Perspective at the end of this article for a discussion about the inconsistency.
Factual and Procedural Background
View this content by subscribing
Please register to unlock this content
I already have an account. Log in
