[suijuris]

15 U.S.C. § 1692j - Furnishing certain deceptive forms



a) It is unlawful to design, compile, and furnish any form knowing that such form would be used to create the false belief in a consumer that a person other than the creditor of such consumer is participating in the collection of or in an attempt to collect a debt such consumer allegedly owes such creditor, when in fact such person is not so participating.





(b) Any person who violates this section shall be liable to the same extent and in the same manner as a debt collector is liable under section 1692k of this title for failure to comply with a provision of this subchapter.





----------- Cites --------------



NOTES OF DECISIONS



Flat-rating 2

Truthfulness of debtor's belief 1



1. Truthfulness of debtor's belief



In light of program that creditor and collector were committed to, belief on part of debtor that collector was engaged in attempt to collect debts was not false. Bingham v. Collection Bureau, Inc., D.C.N.D.1981, 505 F.Supp. 864. Consumer Protection 10



2. Flat-rating



The purpose of provision of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) which prohibits a creditor from falsely creating the impression that a third party is involved in debt collection is to prevent the abusive practice known as "flat- rating"; a "flat-rater" is one who sells to creditors dunning letters bearing the letterhead of the flat-rater's collection agency and extorting the debtor to pay the creditor at once. Orenbuch v. North Shore Health Systems, Inc., E.D.N.Y.2003, 250 F.Supp.2d 145. Consumer Protection 10



Debt collection agency was not acting as debt collector, under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), when it sent dunning letters to debtors, and, thus violated FDCPA provision prohibiting furnishing form that would create false belief that person other than creditor was participating in collection of debt; debtors were instructed to mail payments to creditor, not agency, debtors were not instructed to contact agency, though its name and address were included in letter, agency charged creditor flat fee for each letter sent rather than charging according to amount collected by creditor, letter stated that if debtor did not pay promptly, creditor would refer file to a collection agency, and agency ultimately attempted to collect from fewer than 20% of debtors it sent letters to. Randle v. GC Services L.P., N.D.Ill.1999, 48 F.Supp.2d 835. Consumer Protection 10



Dunning letter from attorney was not prohibited "flat-rating" under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act where no party provided creditor with dunning letters, attorney letter did not create false belief that parties other than creditor were trying to collect debt, and debt collection agency was a "debt collector" within meaning of Act. Anthes v. Transworld Systems, Inc., D.Del.1991, 765 F.Supp. 162. Consumer Protection 10