Beth Lavallee v. Med-1 Solutions, LLC
932 F.3d 1049
| 7th Cir. | 2019Background
- Lavallee incurred two medical debts referred to debt collector Med-1; Med-1 emailed her in March and April 2015 with a “View SecurePackage” hyperlink but the emails said nothing about a debt.
- The hyperlink led to a multi-step web process on a vendor server that ultimately contained a § 1692g(a) validation notice as a PDF; Med-1’s records show Lavallee never opened the secure package.
- On November 12, 2015 Lavallee first learned Med-1 was collecting the debts and called Med-1; Med-1 did not provide the § 1692g(a) disclosures during that call or send written notice within five days.
- Lavallee sued under the FDCPA § 1692g(a) for failure to provide the required validation notice; cross-motions for summary judgment followed.
- The magistrate judge granted summary judgment for Lavallee; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the emails were not “communications” under § 1692a(2) because they did not convey information regarding a debt, and (2) the emails did not themselves “contain” the § 1692g(a) disclosures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lavallee has Article III standing to sue for failure to provide § 1692g(a) disclosures | Lavallee: complete deprivation of the required disclosures (and being sued) caused a concrete, particularized injury and posed a real risk of harm | Med-1: no concrete injury; also argued Lavallee cannot challenge emails she never opened | Held: Lavallee has standing—complete nondisclosure plus being a defendant in collection suit made the harm concrete; Med-1’s introduction of the emails into evidence waived the standing objection to their adequacy |
| Whether Med-1’s March/April emails were an “initial communication” under FDCPA (§ 1692a(2)) | Lavallee: emails lacked any reference or implication of a debt and thus were not communications | Med-1: emails identified the sender and provided a way to access the validation notice; analogous to voicemails held communications in other circuits | Held: Emails were not “communications” because they did not convey or at least imply information regarding a debt |
| Whether the emails “contained” the § 1692g(a) disclosures (so no separate written notice was required within five days) | Lavallee: the hyperlinks merely provided a multi-step path to the disclosures; that is not equivalent to containing them | Med-1: providing a link to an online validation notice is functionally the same as enclosing a letter with the disclosures | Held: Emails did not “contain” the disclosures; providing only a hyperlink to a remote multi-step process is insufficient under § 1692g(a) |
| Whether the E‑Sign Act barred treating the emails as written notice under § 1692g(a) (raised by amicus) | (not raised by Lavallee) | Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (amicus): Med-1 likely failed to satisfy E‑Sign Act requirements for using electronic records to furnish legally required written disclosures | Held: Court did not decide E‑Sign Act issue because it resolved the appeal on other grounds and declined to adopt amicus’s new argument on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Durkin v. Equifax Check Servs., Inc., 406 F.3d 410 (7th Cir. 2005) (describing validation notices)
- Casillas v. Madison Ave. Assocs., Inc., 926 F.3d 329 (7th Cir. 2019) (requiring concrete harm beyond a bare procedural FDCPA violation)
- Brown v. Van Ru Credit Corp., 804 F.3d 740 (6th Cir. 2015) (message that does not imply a debt is not a “communication” under the FDCPA)
- Marx v. General Revenue Corp., 668 F.3d 1174 (10th Cir. 2011) (fax that did not indicate it related to debt was not a FDCPA “communication”)
- Hart v. Credit Control, LLC, 871 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2017) (voicemail identifying caller as a debt collector conveyed a communication regarding a debt)
- Miller v. McCalla, Raymer, Padrick, Cobb, Nichols & Clark, L.L.C., 214 F.3d 872 (7th Cir. 2000) (providing a phone number to obtain required information does not satisfy § 1692g(a))
- Horkey v. J.V.D.B. & Associates, Inc., 333 F.3d 769 (7th Cir. 2003) (analyzing collector’s purpose for § 1692d harassment claim)