The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York recently held that a debt collector’s letter that implied that the debtor was intentionally not paying a debt constituted a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”).  See Beider v. Retrieval Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc., 2015 WL 7454119 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2015).  In the case, the debt collector sent a letter to the debtor that stated, “[y]ou may believe that [creditor] will eventually forget about the $187.20 you owe for laboratory tests they performed. . . . There is no longer any justification for not paying for the laboratory services that you received. . . . Spare yourself further time on this matter. Pay this past-due bill today.”  The debtor filed a complaint claiming, among other alleged violations, that this letter violated both 15 USC 1692d, which prohibits harassing conduct, and 1692e(7), which prohibits “[t]he false representation or implication that the consumer committed any crime or other conduct in order to disgrace the consumer.”  The debt collector then filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  The Court denied the motion to dismiss these two allegations, holding that the tone of the letter “was meant to intimidate” the debtor and to imply that the debtor was intentionally not paying the debt, in violation of these two sections of the FDCPA.  The Court, however, did dismiss the allegation that the debt collector had violated the FDCPA by using a trade name instead of its registered corporate name, holding that the use of a licensed trade name does not violate the “false name” prohibition of the FDCPA. For a copy of the decision, please contact Michael O’Donnell at modonnell@riker.com.