Landmark Victory! Debt Collector Did Not Deceive Debtor Who Refused to Give Name

A debt collector must verify the identity of a communication recipient to ensure a right-party contact while also avoiding a disclosure about the existence of the debt to a third-party.  Thus, a debt collector must, when asked, provide meaningful information about the purpose of a telephone call to a third-party – even when the third-party refuses to identify herself – without disclosing that the call is an attempt to collect a debt. 

In the latest episode of the Debt Collection Drill podcast, Moss & Barnett attorneys John Rossman and Mike Poncin are joined by attorney Aylix Jensen who elaborates on her recent, complete victory in Federal Court establishing that a debt collector did not violate the FDCPA by stating it was a “financial services company” calling regarding a “personal business matter” to an unidentified individual – the Plaintiff – who the Court identified as the correct “customer for the account.” 

The case, filed in the Maryland District Court,  is Mayhall v. MRS BPO, et al., Case # GJH-19-2384; the Order can be found here. 

Listen here.

---

insideARM Perspective

insideARM started talking about this issue a few years ago. See this for a concise video explanation of the "authentication dance" challenge faced by collectors and consumers.