12. Plaintiff brings claims, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (hereinafter “FRCP”)  Rule 23, individually and on behalf of the following consumer class (the “Class”):  • Plaintiff brings this action individually and as a class action on behalf of all  persons similarly situated in the State of New York from whom Defendant  attempted to collect a consumer debt using the same unlawful form letter herein,  from one year before the date of this Complaint to the present.   • The Class period begins one year to the filing of this Action.   13. The Class satisfies all the requirements of Rule 23 of the FRCP for maintaining a class action:  • Upon information and belief, the Class is so numerous that joinder of all members  is impracticable because there are hundreds and/or thousands of persons who  have received debt collection Letter and/or notices from Defendant that fail to  adequately advise the consumer of the amount owed in violation of the FDCPA.  Plaintiff is complaining of a standard form letter and/or notice that is sent to  hundreds of persons (See Exhibit A, except that the undersigned attorney has, in  accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 partially redacted the financial account  numbers in an effort to protect Plaintiff’s privacy);  • There are questions of law and fact which are common to the Class and which  predominate over questions affecting any individual Class member.  These  common questions of law and fact include, without limitation:  a.  Whether Defendant violated various provisions of the FDCPA;  b.  Whether Plaintiff and the Class have been injured by Defendant’s  conduct;  c.  Whether Plaintiff and the Class have sustained damages and are  entitled to restitution as a result of Defendant’s wrongdoing and if  so, what is the proper measure and appropriate statutory formula to  be applied in determining such damages and restitution; and  d.  Whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to declaratory and/or  injunctive relief.  • Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the Class, which all arise from the same  operative facts and are based on the same legal theories.  • Plaintiff has no interest adverse or antagonistic to the interest of the other  members of the Class.  • Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the Class and has  retained experienced and competent attorneys to represent the Class.  • A Class Action is superior to other methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of the claims herein asserted. Plaintiff anticipates that no unusual  difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management of this class action.  • A Class Action will permit large numbers of similarly situated persons to prosecute  their common claims in a single forum simultaneously and without the duplication  of effort and expense that numerous individual actions would engender.  Class  treatment will also permit the adjudication of relatively small claims by many  Class members who could not otherwise afford to seek legal redress for the wrongs  complained of herein.  Absent a Class Action, class members will continue to  suffer losses of statutory protected rights as well as monetary damages. If  Defendant’s conduct is allowed to proceed without remedy they will continue to  reap and retain the proceeds of their ill-gotten gains.  • Defendant has acted on grounds generally applicable to the entire Class, thereby  making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief  with respect to the Class as a whole.  14. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs numbered “1”  through “13” herein with the same force and effect as if the same were set forth at length herein.   15. Defendant collects and attempts to collect debts incurred or alleged to have been incurred for  personal, family or household purposes on behalf of creditors using the United States Postal  Services, telephone and Internet.   16. Upon information and belief, within the last year Defendant commenced efforts to collect an  alleged consumer “debt” as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1692a(5), when it mailed a Collection Letter  to Plaintiff seeking to collect on an unpaid account allegedly owed to Discover Bank.   17. On or around October 26, 2017, Defendant sent Plaintiff a collection letter. See Exhibit A.   18. The letter was sent or caused to be sent by persons employed by Defendant as a “debt collector”  as defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(6).   19. The letter is a “communication” as defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(2).   20. The October 26, 2017 letter was an initial communication between Plaintiff and Defendant.   21. As a result of the following Counts Defendant violated the FDCPA.  First Count  15 U.S.C. §1692g and §1692e et seq.  Failure to Adequately and Honestly Convey the Amount of the Debt   22. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs numbered “1”  through “21” herein with the same force and effect as if the same were set forth at length herein.    23. 15 U.S.C. § 1692g provides that within five days after the initial communication with a    consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the  information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send  the consumer a written notice containing certain enumerated information.    24. 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(1) requires the written notice provide “the amount of the debt.”    25. The written notice, to comply with 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(1), must convey the amount of the  debt clearly and accurately from the perspective of the least sophisticated consumer.    26. The written notice, to comply with 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(1), must state whether interest, late  fees and/or other fees are accruing.    27. The written notice, to comply with 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(1), must allow the least sophisticated  consumer to determine the minimum amount he or she owes at the time of the notice.    28. The written notice, to comply with 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(1), must allow the least sophisticated  consumer to determine what he or she will need to pay to resolve the debt at any given moment  in the future.    29. The written notice, to comply with 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(1), must contain an explanation,  understandable by the least sophisticated consumer, of any fees or interest that may cause the  balance to increase at any time in the future.    30. The failure to include the foregoing information renders an otherwise accurate statement of the  “amount of the debt” violative of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(1).    31. The Letter failed to inform Plaintiff whether the amount listed is the actual amount of the debt  due.    32. The Letter failed to inform Plaintiff whether the amount listed already includes “interest.”    33. The Letter failed to inform Plaintiff whether the amount listed already includes “other  charges.”    34. The Letter failed to advise Plaintiff what portion of the amount listed is principal.    35. The Letter failed to inform Plaintiff whether the amount listed will increase.    36. The Letter failed to inform Plaintiff what “other charges” might apply.    37. The Letter failed to inform Plaintiff if “other charges” are applied, when such “other charges”  will be applied.    38. The Letter failed to inform Plaintiff if “other charges” are applied, what the amount of those  “other charges” will be.    39. The Letter failed to inform Plaintiff of the nature of the “other charges.”    40. The Letter failed to inform Plaintiff if there is “interest,” what the amount of the accrued  interest will be.    41. The Letter failed to inform Plaintiff if there is “interest,” when such interest will be applied.    42. The Letter failed to inform Plaintiff if there is “interest,” what the interest rate is.    43. The Letter failed to inform Plaintiff if there is “interest,” the amount of money the amount  listed will increase per day.    44. The Letter failed to inform Plaintiff if there is “interest,” the amount of money the amount  listed will increase per week.    45. The Letter failed to inform Plaintiff if there is “interest,” the amount of money the amount  listed will increase per month.    46. The Letter failed to inform Plaintiff if there is “interest,” the amount of money the amount  listed will increase per any measurable period.    47. The Letter, because of the aforementioned failures, would render the least sophisticated  consumer unable to determine the amount of his or her debt.    48. The least sophisticated consumer could reasonably believe that the debt could be satisfied by  remitting the listed amount as of the date of the letter, at any time after receipt of the letter.    49. The least sophisticated consumer could reasonably believe that the amount listed was accurate  only on the date of the Letter.    50. If interest is continuing to accrue, the least sophisticated consumer would not know the amount  of the debt because the letter fails to indicate the applicable interest rate.    51. If interest is continuing to accrue, the least sophisticated consumer would not know the amount  of the debt because the letter fails to indicate what the amount of the accrued interest will be.    52. If interest is continuing to accrue, the least sophisticated consumer would not know the amount  of the debt because the letter fails to indicate when such interest will be applied.    53. If interest is continuing to accrue, the least sophisticated consumer would not know the amount  of the debt because the letter fails to indicate the amount of money the amount listed will  increase at any measurable period.    54. If “other charges” are continuing to accrue, the least sophisticated consumer would not know  the amount of the debt because the letter fails to indicate the nature of the “other charges.”1    55. The letter failed to advise Plaintiff that if Plaintiff pays the amount listed, an adjustment may  be necessary after Defendant receives payment.    56. The letter failed to advise Plaintiff that if Plaintiff pays the amount listed, Defendant will  inform Plaintiff of the balance difference before depositing payment.    57. The Defendant’s failures are purposeful.   1 Carlin v. Davidson Fink LLP, 852 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. 2017), Balke v. All. One Receivables Mgmt., No. 16-cv- 5624(ADS)(AKT), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94021, at *14 (E.D.N.Y. June 19, 2017) ("[T]he Collection Letter in this  case refers with vagueness to "accrued interest or other charges," without providing any information regarding the  rate of interest; the nature of the "other charges"; how any such charges would be calculated; and what portion of the  balance due, if any, reflects already-accrued interest and other charges. By failing to provide even the most basic  level of specificity in this regard, the Court "cannot say whether those amounts are properly part of the amount of  the debt," for purposes of section 1692g.Carlin, 852 F.3d at 216. Further, as set forth in Carlin, without any  clarifying details, the Collection Letter states only that these unspecified assessments may be added to the balance  due, which the Court finds to be insufficient to "accurately inform[ ] the [Plaintiff] that the amount of the debt stated  in the letter will increase over time.") consumer knew the true amount due, Defendant does not inform the consumer  whether the amount listed will increase.   58. In order to induce payments from consumers that would not otherwise be made if the consumer  knew the true amount due, Defendant does not inform the consumer what “other charges”  might apply.    59. In order to induce payments from consumers that would not otherwise be made if the consumer  knew the true amount due, Defendant does not inform the consumer when such “other charges”  will be applied.    60. Defendant failed to clearly and unambiguously state the amount of the debt, in violation of 15  U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(1).    61. The Letter would likely make the least sophisticated consumer uncertain as to the amount of  the debt, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(1).    62. The Letter would likely make the least sophisticated consumer confused as to the amount of  the debt, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(1).    63. Defendant's conduct violated 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692g(a)(1) and 1692e.    64. Plaintiff suffered injury in fact by being subjected to unfair and abusive practices of the  Defendant.    65. Plaintiff suffered actual harm by being the target of the Defendant's misleading debt collection  communications.    66. Defendant violated the Plaintiff's right not to be the target of misleading debt collection  communications.    67. Defendant violated the Plaintiff's right to a truthful and fair debt collection process.    68. Defendant used materially false, deceptive, misleading representations and means in its  attempted collection of Plaintiff's alleged debt.    69. Defendant's communications were designed to cause the debtor to suffer a harmful  disadvantage in charting a course of action in response to Defendant's collection efforts.    70. The FDCPA ensures that consumers are fully and truthfully apprised of the facts and of their  rights, the act enables them to understand, make informed decisions about, and participate fully  and meaningfully in the debt collection process. The purpose of the FDCPA is to provide  information that helps consumers to choose intelligently. The Defendant's false representations  misled the Plaintiff in a manner that deprived him of his right to enjoy these benefits, these  materially misleading statements trigger liability under section 1692e of the Act.     71. These deceptive communications additionally violated the FDCPA since they frustrate the  consumer’s ability to intelligently choose his or her response.    Second Count  15 U.S.C. §1692g(a)(3)  Suggesting a Dispute Must be Made in Writing   72. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs numbered “1”  through “71” herein with the same force and effect as if the same were set forth at length herein.   73. 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(3) requires the notice to include a statement that unless the consumer, within  thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the  debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector.    74. There is no requirement that the consumer dispute the debt in writing.   75. It is a violation of FDCPA to require disputes be made in writing.    76. It is a violation of the FDCPA to include language in the Letter that overshadows the required 15  U.S.C. § 1692g(3) statement.   77. It is a violation of the FDCPA to include language in the Letter that contradicts the required 15  U.S.C. § 1692g(3) statement.    78. It is a violation of the FDCPA to include language in the Letter that, when examined from the  perspective of the least sophisticated consumer, overshadows the required § 1692g(a)(3)  statement.   79. It is a violation of the FDCPA to include language in the Letter that, when examined from the  perspective of the least sophisticated consumer, contradicts the required § 1692g(a)(3) statement.    80. It is a violation of the FDCPA to include language in the Letter that, when examined from the  perspective of the least sophisticated consumer, leads the least sophisticated consumer to believe  that her dispute must be in writing.    81. Defendant’s Letter states “Please send all payments or correspondence to:” and proceeds to  provide a mailing address for which to mail same.   82. The least sophisticated consumer, reading the Letter as a whole, would be likely to understand  that, because a dispute is a correspondence, all disputes must be communicated in writing, thereby  invalidating the right to make a dispute orally.   83. Disputes need not be in writing. Hooks v. Forman, Holt, Eliades & Ravin, LLC, 717 F.3d 282 (2d  Cir. 2013).   84. The language concerning written disputes overshadows the required 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(3)  statement.    85. The language concerning written disputes contradicts the required 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(3)  statement.   86. The language concerning written disputes, when examined from the perspective of the least  sophisticated consumer, overshadows the required § 1692g(a)(3) statement.    87. The language concerning written disputes, when examined from the perspective of the least  sophisticated consumer, contradicts the required § 1692g(a)(3) statement.    88. The language concerning written disputes, when examined from the perspective of the least  sophisticated consumer, leads the least sophisticated consumer to believe that her dispute must be  in writing.    89. Defendant has violated § 1692g as the above-referenced language overshadows the information  required to be provided by that Section.  See Balke v. All. One Receivables Mgt., Inc., 16-CV- 5624(ADS)(AKT), 2017 WL 2634653, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. June 19, 2017). 