FDCPA Violation Occurs When Words Are Visible through Envelope’s Address Window

On March 9, 2020, in Cagayat v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a complaint plausibly alleged a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) where a debt collector’s name was partially visible through the glassine window on an envelope because the name bled through (“upside down and backwards”) the interior page of the enclosed letter. The complaint alleged: Cagayat received two consumer debt collection letters from the United Collection Bureau; each letter was enclosed within a paper envelope with a glassine window to show Cagayat’s address; and “written on the inward side of the paper page inside the envelopes and allegedly visible through each envelope’s glassine window ... are the words ‘Collection Bureau’.” The complaint alleged the words “Collection Bureau” could be seen with the naked eye under normal lighting. Cagayat sued for violation of the FDCPA’s prohibition on a debt collector “using any language or symbol, other than the debt collector’s address, on any envelope when communicating with a consumer by use of the mails or by telegram.” Stated simply, Cagayat did not assert that the face of the envelope itself violated the FDCPA but, instead, that the words “Collection Bureau” could be seen through the face of the envelope. The District Court dismissed the claim, noting in part that the “contested language cannot be clearly read without unusual strain or effort because it is upside-down and backwards when the letters are held right-side up.” 
 
The Sixth Circuit reversed the dismissal. Citing the remedial purpose of the FDCPA, the statute’s “extraordinarily broad” reach, and the Third Circuit’s decision in Douglass v. Convergent Outsourcing, the Sixth Circuit concluded that words or symbols visible through a glassine window are equivalent to printing those words/symbols on the face of the envelope. The court was careful to note that further discovery at the District Court would reveal whether the letters “when viewed in normal lighting, display clearly visible language that indicates that the communications pertain to collection of a debt.” The dissent rightfully pointed out that the FDCPA requires the enclosed letter to note that its purpose is collection of a debt. That fact leaves debt collectors in a difficult position: how to comply with the statute by printing the mandatory words on the letter, but ensuring those words are never visible through the envelope (for example, when an envelope is wetted by rain and the words bleed through the paper envelope). These issues will continue to be litigated as they arise.
 
Cagayat v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., 2020 WL 1128786 (6th Cir. 2020). Link to decision.

This publication is intended for general information purposes only and does not and is not intended to constitute legal advice. The reader should consult with legal counsel to determine how laws or decisions discussed herein apply to the reader’s specific circumstances.