Fidelity Financial Services Faces Lawsuit Claiming it Failed to Relay Debt Validation Rights

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A Georgia woman has filed a proposed class action against Fidelity Financial Services, Inc. in connection with the company’s alleged efforts to collect on a debt owed to “ADT” over a home security account.

The case states that upon canceling her account, the plaintiff did not owe any balance to ADT. Despite owing nothing, the lawsuit says the plaintiff received an initial collection notice from the defendant in March 2018 demanding payment of $2,177. The lawsuit points out that since the defendant did not send the plaintiff any other written communication within five days of the initial letter, the company, under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), was required to include in that first notice a statement informing the woman of her right to dispute the validity of the debt or any portion thereof within 30 days. Instead, the defendant’s March 2018 noticed allegedly stated, per the late notice attached to the complaint:

“Unless you notify this office within thirty (30) days after receiving this notice that you … valid.”

The lawsuit claims the typo/printing error amounts to failure by the defendant to properly print the FDCPA’s mandatory debt validation notice.

The case further picks at the defendant’s use of the word “urgent” in its communication with the plaintiff, claiming such language has the effect of inducing the least sophisticated consumer to “overlook her right” to dispute a debt. Lastly, the lawsuit takes issue with the defendant’s claim that it’s “now gathering asset, employment and nationwide credit information.”

“Telling the consumer that information about her assets are [sic] ‘now’ being ‘gathered,’ suggesting that the collector might be in the process of contacting her employer, and implying an urgent need to pay the debt before it is reported to her ‘credit file’ all have the effect of inducing the least sophisticated consumer to overlook her right to dispute the debt,” the complaint argues.