Pollard v. Law Office of Mandy L. Spaulding , No. 13-2478 (1st Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseSection 1692g(b) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) requires that a debt collector’s collection activities and communications “not overshadow or be inconsistent with the disclosure of the consumer’s right to dispute the debt or request the name and address of the original creditor.” In this case, Plaintiff, a “consumer” within the meaning of the FDCPA, incurred a debt, which Defendant, a “debt collector,” was retained to collect. Approximately one month after Plaintiff received a collection letter sent by Defendant, Plaintiff sued, alleging that Defendant had violated the FDCPA. The district court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff, concluding, inter alia, that the collection letter violated section 1692g as a matter of law. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) for FDCPA purposes, a collection letter is to be viewed from the perspective of the hypothetical unsophisticated consumer; and (2) the effect of the collection letter on the unsophisticated consumer in this case would be to confuse, and therefore, the letter violated section 1692g.
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More › You already receive new opinion summaries from First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.