1. a. A debt collection letter must be evaluated to determine whether it causes confusion or misunderstanding for the consumer. What level of consumer sophistication was employed by the court to determine whether the debt collection letter to Williams caused confusion or misunderstanding?
b. Is confusion on the part of an individual consumer conclusive evidence of a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act? Explain.
c. Describe the two ways by which a plaintiff/consumer can establish that a debt collection letter caused an impermissible level of confusion or misunderstanding.
2. Miller owed $ 2,501.61 to the Star Bank of Cincinnati. Payco attempted to collect the debt by sending a one-page collection form to Miller. The front side of the form included, among other words, in very large capital letters a demand for IMMEDIATE FULL PAYMENT, the words PHONE US TO-DAY, and the word NOW in white letters nearly two inches tall against a red background. At the bottom of the page in the smallest print on the form was the message: NOTICE: SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR IMPORTANT INFORMATION. The reverse side contained the validation notice required under the FDCPA. Does the form conform to FDCPA requirements? Explain.
3. Why shouldn’t debt collectors be able to use aggressive tactics to encourage payment of legitimate bills?
Sandra Williams . . . sought relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). The district court granted the defendant, OSI Educational Services, Inc., (“OSI”), summary judgment. Ms. Williams then filed a timely appeal to this court.