A federal court in New York recently decided that a voicemail message stating that the call was from a debt collector where the voicemail message’s intended recipient was disclosed to a third party who returned the call was not a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). In Abraham Zweigenhaft v. Receivables Performance Management, LLC, RPM left the following voicemail message: “We have an important message from RPM. This is a call from a debt collector. Please call 1(866) 212-7408.” Mr. Zweigenhaft’s son heard the message and returned the call. He then had the following conversation with the RPM representative: RPM: Thank you for calling Receivables Performance Management on a recorded line. This is Michelle how can I help you?
Caller: Hi how are you? I received a message to call you, and I am just trying to figure out who you are trying to reach.
RPM: Okay and your phone number please, area code first.
Caller: (718) 258-9010
RPM: And is this Abra?
Caller: Is this who?
RPM: Abra Zweigenhaft?
Caller: Nope. It's not.
RPM: Okay let me go ahead and take your phone number off the list. The last four digits again please. 9010 or 7032?
RPM: Okay I'll take it off the list. You have a nice day.
Caller: Thank you.
RPM: Uh huh, bye bye.
Zweigenhaft filed suit against RPM alleging that the content of the voicemail message and the phone call together conveyed information regarding the consumer’s debt to a third party, Zweigenhaft’s son, in violation of FDCPA § 1692c(b). The United States Court for the Eastern District of New York disagreed that this was a violation. The court recognized the statute’s conflicting provisions. Debt collectors are required by the FDCPA to meaningfully identify themselves when calling a consumer, but doing so may inevitably convey information about a consumer’s debt, which if overheard by a third party gives rise to consumer arguments that the debt collector violated the FDCPA. In finding that the communications did not violate the FDCPA, the court stated that if it were to find that the contact was a violation of the FDCPA “would place an undue restriction on an ethical debt collector in light of our society’s common use of communication technology.”