902 F.3d 274
3rd Cir.2018Background
- Elaine and William Levins received repeated prerecorded voicemail debt-collection messages stating only “ARS calling,” a phone number, that “ARS is a debt collector,” and a website (arspayment.com).
- The Levinses had never received written communications from HRRG and associated “ARS” with other debt collectors (notably ARS National Services, Inc.).
- HRRG is registered in New Jersey under the alternative business name “ARS ACCOUNT RESOLUTION SERVICES” but has not registered the standalone name “ARS.”
- The Levinses sued HRRG under the FDCPA, alleging violations of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e(14) (use of any business name other than the true name), 1692d(6) (telephone calls without meaningful disclosure of caller identity), and 1692e(10) (use of false or deceptive means).
- The District Court dismissed all claims under Rule 12(b)(6); the Third Circuit reviewed the pleadings and certain public-record filings on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether using “ARS” in voicemail violated § 1692e(14) (true name) | Levins: “ARS” is not HRRG’s true name and is commonly associated with other companies, so the voicemail used a name other than the true name. | HRRG: “ARS” is an abbreviation of its registered alternative business name and thus a permissible name. | Vacated dismissal — plausible §1692e(14) claim: taking complaint allegations as true, “ARS” may not be HRRG’s true name. |
| Whether the messages violated § 1692d(6) (no meaningful disclosure) | Levins: Saying only “ARS” failed to meaningfully disclose the caller’s identity because it could refer to many entities. | HRRG: The message identified itself as a debt collector, stated purpose (collect a debt), and provided contact info — sufficient disclosure. | Affirmed dismissal — messages meaningfully disclosed identity (least sophisticated debtor would know it was a debt-collection call). |
| Whether the messages violated § 1692e(10) (false or deceptive means) | Levins: Directing consumers to call or visit site to obtain information was deceptive and could mislead/obtain information under false pretenses. | HRRG: Messages warned any information obtained would be used to collect a debt; disclosure was not deceptive. | Affirmed dismissal — no materially deceptive or false representation; disclosures were adequate for least sophisticated debtor. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192 (general rule on documents considered on 12(b)(6) review)
- Tatis v. Allied Interstate, LLC, 882 F.3d 422 (FDCPA standard; least sophisticated debtor rule)
- Hart v. Credit Control, LLC, 871 F.3d 1255 (interpreting “meaningful disclosure” for voicemail)
- Brown v. Card Serv. Ctr., 464 F.3d 450 (use of FTC guidance in FDCPA cases)
- Sayles v. Advanced Recovery Sys., Inc., 865 F.3d 246 (use of ARS abbreviation in other contexts)
- Koby v. ARS Nat’l Servs., Inc., 846 F.3d 1071 (use of ARS abbreviation in other contexts)
- Jensen v. Pressler & Pressler, 791 F.3d 413 (materiality standard under §1692e)
- Loughrin v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 2384 (canon against reading different statutory terms as identical)
- Rotkiske v. Klemm, 890 F.3d 422 (pleading plausibility standard)
- Glover v. FDIC, 698 F.3d 139 (standard of review for 12(b)(6))
- Harvey v. Great Seneca Fin. Corp., 453 F.3d 324 (examples of §1692e(10) violations)