160 F. Supp. 3d 819
E.D. Pa.2015Background
- Plaintiff Tamika Palmer received a debt-collection letter on April 13, 2014, enclosed in an envelope with a glassine (transparent) window showing her name, address, and a visible bar code.
- The bar code, when scanned, yields a 14-digit string that contains Palmer’s internal file number and other internal codes used by defendant Credit Collection Services, Inc. (CCS) for tracking and form identification.
- Palmer sued under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., alleging the visible bar code violated § 1692f(8), which prohibits any language or symbol (other than the collector’s address or allowed business name) on envelopes used to communicate with consumers.
- Both parties moved for summary judgment on liability; the material facts were undisputed.
- The court considered whether the visible bar code constituted a prohibited “language or symbol” under § 1692f(8) and whether applying the statute literally would be absurd.
- The court found the bar code was specifically tied to Palmer’s debt and therefore prohibited by § 1692f(8); it granted Palmer’s motion on liability and denied CCS’s motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a bar code visible through an envelope window violates § 1692f(8) | The visible bar code is functionally equivalent to an account number and thus is a prohibited symbol identifying her as a debtor | The bar code is a scrambled/meaningless string; even if not, reading § 1692f(8) literally would produce absurd results and a benign-language exception should apply | Bar code is a forbidden “symbol” under § 1692f(8); literal application not absurd here; defendant liable on summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Douglass v. Convergent Outsourcing, 765 F.3d 299 (3d Cir. 2014) (account number visible through window violated § 1692f(8) due to privacy concerns)
- Goswami v. American Collections Enterprise, Inc., 377 F.3d 488 (5th Cir. 2004) (adopted a benign-language exception for non-identifying markings on envelopes)
- Strand v. Diversified Collection Service, Inc., 380 F.3d 316 (8th Cir. 2004) (applied benign-language exception where envelope markings were non-identifying)