LINK v. ARS NATIONAL SERVICES, INC.
2:15-cv-00643
W.D. Pa.Nov 2, 2015Background
- Plaintiff Terri Link sued ARS National Services, Inc. under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), alleging a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(8).
- ARS mailed a debt-collection letter in an envelope bearing a barcode; when scanned with appropriate software the barcode revealed an account number tied to Link.
- Plaintiff alleges the barcode disclosure is equivalent to printing an account number on the envelope and thus violates § 1692f(8)’s ban on language or symbols (other than the debt collector’s address) on envelopes.
- ARS moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing the barcode is benign because it conveys nothing unless scanned, is inaccessible without special equipment/software, and that scanning implicates other laws.
- The magistrate judge considered controlling Third Circuit precedent (Douglass) and persuasive district-court decisions (Styer, Kostik, Waldron) and found the barcode was not benign and could identify the debtor.
- Recommendation: deny ARS’s motion for judgment on the pleadings; the court applied Douglass to hold an embedded account number in a barcode is treated like an account number on the envelope for § 1692f(8) purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a barcode on a debt-collection envelope that, when scanned, reveals an account number, violates § 1692f(8) | Barcode reveals an account number identifying Link and thus is the functional equivalent of printing the account number on the envelope | Barcode is benign: it conveys nothing unless scanned, information is inaccessible without special equipment, and scanning raises other legal issues | Denied defendant’s motion; applying Douglass, embedded account number in barcode is not benign and can violate § 1692f(8) |
Key Cases Cited
- Douglass v. Convergent Outsourcing, 765 F.3d 299 (3d Cir. 2014) (Third Circuit held an account number on an envelope can identify a debtor and is not "benign" under § 1692f(8))
- Strand v. Diversified Collection Servs., Inc., 380 F.3d 316 (8th Cir. 2004) (adopted a benign-language exception for innocuous envelope markings)
- Goswami v. American Collections Enter., 377 F.3d 488 (5th Cir. 2004) (adopted benign-language approach for non-identifying envelope markings)
- Caprio v. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group, LLC, 709 F.3d 142 (3d Cir. 2013) (FDCPA is remedial and should be construed broadly)