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
Aug 7, 2026
Daniel McGrath Re-Elected Senior Director of the Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel

Insights for Insurers Alert
Aug 7, 2026
California Supreme Court Clarifies Pleading Standards for Excess Policy Claims

Press Release
Aug 6, 2026
Charles Townsend Named a Best Mentor Finalist in the 2026 ALM Texas Legal Awards

Webinar
Aug 5, 2026
April Toy Moderates HNBA Webinar on AI in the Practice of Law

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Aug 5, 2026
2026 AI Compliance: Upcoming Laws Every Organization Needs to Know

Press Release
July 21, 2026 | Updated on August 4, 2026
Three Hinshaw Attorneys Named to the 2026 National Black Lawyers’ Top 40 Under 40 List

Healthcare Alert
Aug 3, 2026
Fixing the Emergency Refill Trap: What California’s AB 1587 Means for Pharmacies

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Jul 30, 2026
Should Text Messages be Considered “Calls” Under the TCPA? The Seventh Circuit Says No

Healthcare Alert
Jul 30, 2026
California Courts Sharply Curtail the MICRA Damages Cap in Nursing Home Litigation

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 30, 2026
Analyzing a Couple of Cases Involving Exclusions in D&O Policies

In The News
Jul 29, 2026
Hinshaw Authors Contribute Two Articles in Latest Edition of the CCFL Quarterly Report

Webinar
Jul 28, 2026
Cathy Mulrow-Peattie and Sabrina Janeiro Present on Legal AI Technology
