Zemeckis v. Global Credit & Collection Corp.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9557
7th Cir.2012Background
- Global Credit & Collection Corp. collected a Capital One debt from Misty Zemeckis in 2010 and sent a dunning letter that included a debt validation notice.
- Zemeckis contends the letter's front-loaded language urging action overshadowed the thirty-day validation window.
- The district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), finding the language puffery and the back validation notice permissible.
- Zemeckis sought to conduct a consumer survey to prove confusion but the district court denied this extrinsic-evidence step.
- The Seventh Circuit affirms, holding the letter is clear on its face, and rejection of the survey request was proper; no FDCPA violation established.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FDCPA 1692g overshadowing the validation notice | Zemeckis argues the letter's wording overshadows the 30-day right to dispute | Global Credit contends puffery and front guidance do not override the statute | No violation; language is puffery and does not overshadow the validation notice |
| Extrinsic evidence via consumer survey | Zemeckis seeks a survey to show confusion | Global Credit argues surveys unnecessary where letter is clear as a matter of law | Affirmed denial of survey; no need for extrinsic evidence when letter is clear |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Cavalry Inv., L.L.C., 365 F.3d 572 (7th Cir. 2004) (unsophisticated consumer standard; puffery allowed unless misleading)
- Bartlett v. Heibl, 128 F.3d 497 (7th Cir. 1997) (contradictory deadlines can violate 1692g(b))
- Chauncey v. JDR Recovery Corp., 118 F.3d 516 (7th Cir. 1997) (deadline language can render notice confusing)
- Avila v. Rubin, 84 F.3d 222 (7th Cir. 1996) (unsophisticated consumer standard; puffery)
- Sims v. GC Services L.P., 445 F.3d 959 (7th Cir. 2006) (location of validation notice on back can be adequate)