Apple Recovery Leaves Validation Rights Out of Debt Collection Letter Class Action

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) regulates the actions of third-party debt collectors when they are trying to collect consumer debts. This class action brings suit against one such debt collector, Apple Recovery Services Corp., claiming that the company sent out collection letters that did not provide information to consumers about their rights regarding having the debt validated, as required by the FDCPA.

The class for this action is all persons living in the US who, between February 20, 2022 and February 20, 2023 received a debt collection letter from Apple Recovery that did not tell them of their right to request validation of the alleged debt. A California subclass has also been defined for those in the above class who live in California.

The FDCPA is a federal law; however, California has a similar state law, the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA), that makes reference to parts of the federal law. These laws are meant to stop debt collectors from using abusive practices to try to collect debts and to forbid them to mislead or confuse consumers or otherwise use unfair tactics.

One thing the FDCPA requires is that third-party debt collectors provide certain information to consumers when they make their first contact with them (or very soon thereafter). Among other things, they must tell consumer about certain rights they have to validate the debt they are accused of owing.

The plaintiff in this case, David Maillet, received a debt collection from Apple Recovery that was dated January 15, 2023. It claimed to be trying to collect a debt from him of $3,891.89 that originated from Texaco Oil.

The letter, the complaint alleges, gave Maillet three options for settling the debt, which were presented as only being valid until February 10 of that year. But the letter also made a significant omission.

“In the letter,” the complaint alleges, Apple Recovery “did not inform [Maillet] of his right to request validation of the debt, nor did it information [Maillet] that [Apple Recovery] would assume the debt was valid if he did not dispute the validity of the debt within thirty days of receipt of the letter.”

Also, the complaint alleges, the letter does not tell Maillet that if he sends Apple Recovery a written notice that he disputes the debt, within thirty days of receiving the collection letter, the company must verify the debt in writing.

The complaint further implies that the February date for the acceptance of the settlement plans “overshadows” the thirty-day dispute period.

Article Type: Lawsuit
Topic: Consumer
Tags: FDCPA, Improper Validation Notice, Misleading or Confusing Debt Collection Letter, Unlawful Debt Collection