GC Services Confusing Debt Collection Letter Class Action

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) requires that certain information be given to a consumer by a debt collector and that the information be clear and not confusing. This class action takes issue with three collection letters sent by GC Services (GCS) to a consumer debtor, which it alleges are inconsistent with each other and confusing. It brings suit under the FDCPA and Wisconsin Consumer Act (WCA).

The first letter was dated June 16, 2019. It purportedly referred to a debt plaintiff Deborah Matke owed to Citibank, NA in connection with her Sears Gold Mastercard Account. The letter includes the obligatory debt validation notice, informing her that she has thirty days to dispute the debt. It showed a New Balance of $1,023.23 and a Minimum Payment Due of $625.23.

According to the complaint, the wording of the letter makes it unclear as to whether GCS is attempting to collect the entire amount owed or the minimum amount.

The complaint quotes an earlier case which found, “In the context of a debt, ‘owing’ an amount is distinguishable from the amount ‘due.’ For example, a debtor might ‘owe’ a certain amount on a loan, but only a portion of that amount will be ‘due’ at a particular time.”

The second letter was dated June 18, 2019. It was therefore sent just a couple of days after the first and within the thirty-day period when the debt can be disputed.

This letter refers to the same card and shows the same balance but no minimum payment amount. It offers to settle the entire debt for $767.42.

According to the complaint, “The unsophisticated consumer receiving [these two letters] would be confused and misled about whether he could still make a minimum payment on the account to return it to a current status.” The complaint also alleges that an unsophisticated consumer would also be confused about whether he could still dispute the debt.

The third letter was dated July 12, 2019. This letter had the same New Balance and Minimum Payment Due as the first letter, but it seems to refer to a Shop Your Way Masterard with a different number.

The complaint alleges, “The unsophisticated consumer would be confused as to whether [the third letter] was attempting to collect the same account as [the first two letters], and would be further confused as to whether the account balance and minimum payment due information in [this third letter] was accurate.”

The complaint also claims that the letter implies that the account has not been accelerated and that it aims to collect the Minimum Payment Due rather than the entire account balance.

According to the complaint, the three letters are inconsistent and do not provide Matke with a clear idea of what debt or amount they’re seeking to collect and with the status of the debt.

Article Type: Lawsuit
Topic: Consumer

Most Recent Case Event

GC Services Confusing Debt Collection Letter Complaint

June 15, 2020

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) requires that certain information be given to a consumer by a debt collector and that the information be clear and not confusing. This class action takes issue with three collection letters sent by GC Services (GCS) to a consumer debtor, which it alleges are inconsistent with each other and confusing. It brings suit under the FDCPA and Wisconsin Consumer Act (WCA).

GC Services Confusing Debt Collection Letter Complaint

Case Event History

GC Services Confusing Debt Collection Letter Complaint

June 15, 2020

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) requires that certain information be given to a consumer by a debt collector and that the information be clear and not confusing. This class action takes issue with three collection letters sent by GC Services (GCS) to a consumer debtor, which it alleges are inconsistent with each other and confusing. It brings suit under the FDCPA and Wisconsin Consumer Act (WCA).

GC Services Confusing Debt Collection Letter Complaint
Tags: FDCPA, Misleading or Confusing Debt Collection Letter, Unlawful Debt Collection