Wisconsin Consumer Claims Finance System of Green Bay Sent ‘Deceptive’ Collection Letters

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

Finance System of Green Bay, Inc. is the defendant in a proposed class action out of Wisconsin federal court alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). 

The plaintiff claims to have received three unlawful collection letters from the defendant on August 6th, August 22nd, and September 7th of 2017. According to the complaint, the August 6th letter falsely asserted that the plaintiff owed a debt to “Green Bay Radiology SC Professional Billing Service,” who the lawsuit argues is not the true creditor to whom payment is owed. Further, the suit claims the August 6th letter falsely implied that the plaintiff would be unable to receive future medical services from the creditor if she failed to resolve the debt. The case then alleges that the letter overshadowed the plaintiff’s right to dispute her debt by directing her to contact the supposed creditor with any questions she may have, rather than contact the debt collector directly. 

“To obtain verification of the debt, the FDCPA requires the consumer to dispute the debt in writing and send the dispute to the debt collector, not by calling [the creditor],” the lawsuit reads.

The second letter – dated August 22, 2017 – allegedly contained the following language:

“You do not want to lose our confidence. You want to be worthy of the faith put in you by your creditor; yet the amount remains unpaid. Please contact your creditor or our office for payment on the above account. (Emphasis added) We are interested in you preserving a good credit rating with the above creditor. (Emphasis added).”

The suit argues the letter falsely implied that the 30-day period to dispute the debt had expired while imparting a false sense of urgency for timely payment. A step further, the complaint argues the above language is deceptive in that the defendant “never placed any confidence in [the plaintiff] and there was never any to lose.”

Lastly, the September 2017 letter, which was also sent within the plaintiff’s 30-day window in which she could legally dispute the debt, allegedly failed to inform the woman of her “continuing rights” to do so under the FDCPA. Rather than inform the plaintiff of her right to dispute and request verification of her obligation, the complaint alleges, the letter asked the following of the plaintiff:

“‘[T]o avoid errors and to clear your credit record with the above creditor, send or bring payment to [FSGB], or pay online….’ (Emphasis added).”

This language, the complaint argues, falsely suggests that the creditor maintains a “credit record” while inaccurately implying that paying the full amount due is the only way to clear this record. 

“The 9/7/2017 Letter creates a false sense of urgency in an effort to induce [the plaintiff] and other unsophisticated consumers into abandoning their validation and dispute rights and, instead, quickly pay [the defendant] the full amounts demanded,” the case states.