New York Federal Court Demands that FDCPA Plaintiffs Read Entire Debt Collection Letter to Determine Creditor's Identity
1 min read
Nov 30, 2017
In Goldstein v. Diversified Adjustment Serv., the Eastern District of New York may have walked back one of the new favorite Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the "FDCPA") claims—namely that the creditor was not properly identified pursuant to § 1692g of the FDCPA. Although the debt collection letter at issue listed Sprint several times, Goldstein's complaint nonetheless alleged that the debt collection letter violated the FDCPA by failing to adequately identify to whom the debt was owed and what Sprint's role was.
Based on recent caselaw, plaintiffs have, with growing frequency, argued that debt collector's letters that fail to explicitly identify the owner of the debt as the "creditor" violate § 1692g(a)(2). Section 1692g(a)(2) requires a debt collector to notify the debtor in the initial communication (or within five days thereafter) of the "name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed." In prior cases, courts have held that debt collectors may explicitly or implicitly satisfy § 1692g(a)(2). Notably however, those cases also held that a letter that only makes a single reference in the subject line to the identity of the creditor (i.e. "Re: Name of Creditor", as opposed to "Creditor: Name of Creditor") violates the FDCPA.
In Goldstein, the Court distinguished prior holdings and held that a debt collection letter must be read as a whole to determine if the debtor was on notice to whom he/she owned the debt. Although the Goldstein letter included the previously troublesome "re: name of creditor" language, the Court focused on seven references to the creditor Sprint by name in the letter, including that the debt collector would notify Sprint when payment was received. Specifically, the Court held that an entire reading of the letter could not lead the debtor to conclude that the debt was owed to anyone besides the specific creditor.
While this is only one decision, the Court's holding could give future plaintiffs pause to consider reading the entire collection letter before filing suit.
Related Capabilities
Featured Insights

Press Release
Sep 18, 2026
Paris Glazer Named to Chicago Daily Law Bulletin’s 2026 40 Attorneys Under Forty

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Sep 17, 2026
Federal and State Regulators Continue Crackdown on Junk Fees

Press Release
Sep 17, 2026
Defense Verdict Reduces $134 Million Demand to $2 Million in Catastrophic Motorcycle Injury Case

Insights for Insurers Alert
Sep 16, 2026
America 250: The Nation’s Unique Contributions to Insurance Coverage Law and Litigation

In The News
Sep 15, 2026
Lucy Wang Discusses the California Insurance Commissioner’s Role in Protecting Consumers

Press Release
Sep 10, 2026
Hinshaw Attorneys Recognized as 2027 Lexology Index Thought Leaders: USA

In The News
Sep 10, 2026
Nicholas Ajello and Gregory Emry Analyze FAA’s Proposed BVLOS Drone Regulations

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Sep 9, 2026
“Play Now, Arbitrate Later”—“Not So Fast,” Ninth Circuit Says

In The News
Sep 9, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Discusses “Patchwork” of Laws Targeting Personalized Pricing

Employment Law Observer
Sep 8, 2026
Five Workplace Issues Every Employer Should Address Before They Become a Costly Lawsuit

Press Release
Sep 8, 2026
Jim Sandy Appointed Chair of ABA Debt Collection and Bankruptcy Subcommittee

