Donna Dinaples v. MRS BPO LLC
934 F.3d 275
| 3rd Cir. | 2019Background
- Donna DiNaples fell behind on a Chase credit-card account that was assigned to collection agency MRS BPO, LLC (MRS).
- MRS mailed a pressure-sealed collection envelope that displayed an unencrypted QR code on its face; when scanned the QR code revealed a string including DiNaples’s MRS internal account number.
- DiNaples filed a class action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), alleging MRS violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(8) (prohibiting any language or symbol other than the debt collector’s address on an envelope).
- The district court granted summary judgment to DiNaples on liability, concluding the QR code disclosure violated § 1692f(8), and awarded class damages after the parties stipulated damages.
- MRS appealed, arguing lack of standing, that the QR code was benign (invoking a supposed benign-language exception), and that the bona fide error defense applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing (Article III injury) | Receipt of envelope with QR code embedding her account number is a concrete privacy injury under FDCPA | No concrete injury unless someone actually scanned and read the QR code (or there was imminent risk) | Plaintiff has standing: disclosure via QR code is a concrete, cognizable privacy injury (Spokeo, Douglass, St. Pierre) |
| Whether §1692f(8) prohibits QR code embedding account number | QR code that reveals account number exposes protected information and thus violates §1692f(8) | QR code is facially neutral and benign; any reading would be akin to unlawfully scanning/opening mail — should be excluded (benign-language exception) | Violation: an unencrypted QR code that, when scanned, reveals the debtor’s account number breaches §1692f(8); no material difference from displaying the number directly (Douglass) |
| Existence/applicability of a benign-language exception to §1692f(8) | Not necessary; even if exception exists, account-number disclosure is not benign | Insist that neutral markings like QR codes should be treated as benign | Court does not adopt a blanket exception and holds account-number QR disclosure is non-benign and unlawful |
| Bona fide error defense (15 U.S.C. §1692k(c)) | N/A | MRS claims mistake of fact / industry practice; believed conduct could not violate FDCPA | Defense fails: the error was a legal misunderstanding, not a clerical/factual mistake; Jerman bars reliance on bona fide defense for legal errors |
Key Cases Cited
- Douglass v. Convergent Outsourcing, 765 F.3d 299 (3d Cir. 2014) (account number on envelope implicated FDCPA privacy concerns and was not benign)
- St. Pierre v. Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, 898 F.3d 351 (3d Cir. 2018) (exposure of collector account number on envelope is a concrete injury for standing)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (U.S. 2016) (intangible harms can be concrete; consider history and Congress’s judgment)
- Jerman v. Carlisle, 559 U.S. 573 (U.S. 2010) (§1692k(c) bona fide error defense does not cover mistakes of law)