Hinshaw Client Success: Indiana Court Dismisses Debtor's One-Penny FDCPA Case
Indiana federal court (Southern District) holds $0.01 rounding error in settlement offer was immaterial and did not violate §1692e of the FDCPA
Press Release | 2 min read
May 6, 2020
In a well-reasoned decision, a federal court in Indiana granted Hinshaw client Financial Business and Consumer Solutions, Inc.'s (FBCS) motion to dismiss, finding that a rounding error that created a $0.01 difference in the amount of a settlement offer did not amount to a material violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
In 2019, FBCS sent plaintiff Freeman a letter offering a 35% discount on her unpaid cell phone debt. The letter outlined three settlement options [in summary]:
- Make a single payment of $350.84
- Make a down-payment of $70.17, followed by a $280.67 payment 30 days later
- Make three payments of $116.95
Freeman responded by filing suit under Sections 1692e and 1692e(10) of the FDCPA. She alleged that she was confused as to the amounts of the reduced offer and the full balance of her debt and cited the fact that the third settlement option equaled $350.85 and not $350.84 (a one cent difference).
The court ruled that the letter was not reasonably susceptible to a deceptive or misleading interpretation and therefore not materially false. "Put another way," the court stated, "materiality is dependent upon whether the misstatement would mislead the unsophisticated consumer. The court aligned itself with other courts that have held that the term "unsophisticated consumer" is not equivalent to the "least sophisticated consumer."
In both a victory for the accounts receivables industry, and common sense, the court said plaintiff relied "too heavily" on the strict liability of the FDCPA. "A reasonable person with the most basic, rudimentary knowledge of the financial world, but with the ability to make logical deductions and inferences, would recognize the numbers FBCS provided were the result of rounding and were immaterial."
FBCS was represented by Dave Schultz, Carlos Ortiz, and Jennifer Kalas.
The ruling was covered by ACA in "One Cent Rounding Difference in Settlement Offer Did Not Violate the FDCPA," and AccountsRecovery.net in "Judge Grants MTD in FDCPA Case Over Rounding Discrepancy in Settlement Offer."
Featured Insights

Webinar
Apr 29, 2026
When a Cyber Breach Hits: Cybersecurity, Privacy, and Compliance

In The News
Apr 24, 2026
Michael Dowell Reviews New PBM Reform Reshaping Pharmacy Reimbursement

Lawyers for the Profession® Alert
Apr 21, 2026
When Does a Client’s Duty to Investigate Begin? Lessons from a Time-Barred Malpractice Case

Press Release
Apr 20, 2026
Tom Kuzmanovic Selected for BizTimes Milwaukee 2026 Notable Leaders in Law

Press Release
Apr 17, 2026
André Sesler Elected to the Board of Trustees of the University of Florida Law Center Association

Hinshaw Alert
Apr 17, 2026
Q&A: How to Submit Your IEEPA Refund Claim as CAPE Portal Launches April 20, 2026

In The News
Apr 14, 2026
Bloomberg Law Recaps Panels Presented at Hinshaw's 25th Anniversary LMRM Conference

In The News
Apr 14, 2026
Michael Dowell Discusses the Uncertain Impact of Growing Medicare Advantage Scrutiny

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Apr 9, 2026
6 Key Takeaways From the IAPP 2026 Global Summit for Privacy Compliance Professionals





