Betz v. MRS BPO LLC, 2:16-cv-01161

Background

Plaintiff Robin Betz received a May 26, 2016 debt-collection letter from MRS BPO offering a 25% "discount offer" to settle Verizon Wireless debt for $858.14, with first payment due July 10, 2016.
The same letter contained the FDCPA § 1692g validation notice informing the debtor she had 30 days to dispute and could request verification.
Betz alleged the juxtaposition and timing of the settlement offer (deadline near or within the 30-day validation period) would confuse an "unsophisticated consumer" and discourage exercising validation rights.
MRS’s letter included Evory’s "safe harbor" language: "We are not obligated to renew this offer."
District court treated the complaint as alleging likely consumer confusion and whether the letter overshadowed or contradicted the § 1692g notice, then evaluated controlling Seventh Circuit precedent.
Court granted defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion, holding the letter did not violate the FDCPA as a matter of law.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a settlement offer in the initial validation letter that expires during or shortly after the 30-day validation period overshadows or contradicts the § 1692g notice	Betz: timing and language create confusion; consumer cannot both preserve the settlement and timely request verification, discouraging disputes	MRS: letter clearly states validation rights; Evory safe-harbor language prevents misleading implication that offer is final	Court: No FDCPA violation. The validation notice was clear and inclusion/timing of settlement offer is permissible.
Whether debt collector must promise to renew an offer if consumer requests validation	Betz: collector should promise renewal or else offer discourages disputes	MRS: no statutory or case-law requirement to promise renewal; negotiation strategy is not required disclosure	Court: No requirement to promise renewal; uncertainty about renewal is allowed under Evory/DeKoven.
Whether extrinsic evidence (e.g., consumer survey) can show misleading impression despite safe-harbor language	Betz: extrinsic evidence could show consumers think offer won’t be renewed	MRS: safe-harbor language negates claim that initial offer was represented as final	Court: With safe-harbor language present, plaintiff cannot prevail as a matter of law; extrinsic evidence not sufficient.
Whether plaintiff should be allowed discovery on mailing/receipt timing to show offer expired during the 30-day period	Betz: proof of later receipt could show expiration during validation period and thus confusion	MRS: even if offer expired during the 30-day period, that does not create an FDCPA violation	Court: Discovery on mailing timing would not change outcome; offer expiring during validation period is lawful.

Key Cases Cited

Bartlett v. Heibl, 128 F.3d 497 (7th Cir. 1997) (§ 1692g notice must be communicated so unsophisticated consumers understand their validation rights)
Evory v. RJM Acquisitions Funding, 505 F.3d 769 (7th Cir. 2007) (safe-harbor phrasing "We are not obligated to renew this offer" permits limited-time settlement offers without being deceptive)
DeKoven v. Plaza Assocs., 599 F.3d 578 (7th Cir. 2010) (debt collector cannot falsely represent an offer as final; negotiation strategy disclosure not required)
Harrison v. NBD Inc., 968 F. Supp. 837 (E.D.N.Y. 1997) (settlement offer included with validation notice that expires before end of 30-day period did not overshadow the validation notice)
Gervais v. Riddle & Associates, P.C., 479 F. Supp. 2d 270 (D. Conn. 2007) (including a settlement offer with a validation notice does not, by itself, constitute overshadowing under the FDCPA)