1.  Certify the proposed Classes under Federal Rule of Procedure 23 and  appoint Ms. Munroe and her counsel to represent the Classes;   10.  Award the FCRA Class costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 15  U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(3); and   11.  Grant such other further relief as is necessary and proper.  Jury Demand  Plaintiff demands a trial by jury, pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil  Procedure, for all issues triable of right by a jury.  Respectfully submitted,  /s/ Charles M. Delbaum  Charles M. Delbaum (BBO #543225)  Persis Yu (BBO #685951)  National Consumer Law Center   7 Winthrop Square, 4th Floor   Boston, MA 02110  (617) 542-8010 tel.  (617) 542-8028 fax  cdelbaum@nclc.org   pyu@nclc.org  Elizabeth Ryan (BBO # 549632)  John Roddy (BBO # 424240)  Bailey & Glasser LLP  176 Federal Street, 5th Floor  Boston, MA 02110  (617) 439-6730 tel.  (617) 951-3954 fax  eryan@baileyglasser.com  jroddy@baileyglasser.com  Michael Murphy*  Bailey & Glasser LLP  1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW  Suite 540  Washington, DC 20007  (202) 463-2101 tel.  (202) 463-2103 fax  mmurphy@baileyglasser.com  2.  Find that Radius violated Mass. Gen. Laws c. 93A, § 2;   3.  Enter judgment in favor of Ms. Munroe and the Chapter 93A Class and  against Radius for the (i) greater of twenty-five dollars per class member or actual  damages equal to all amounts improperly collected by Radius within the applicable  statutory period that have not yet been reimbursed; and (ii) up to three but not less than  two times the amount specified in (i) if the Court finds that Radius’s conduct was  willful or knowing;   33.  Mass. Gen. Laws c. 93A, § 2(a) prohibits any “unfair or deceptive acts or  practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.”   34.  Mass. Gen. Laws c. 93, § 49 further provides that it is a violation of Mass.  Gen. Laws c. 93A to attempt to collect a debt for personal, family or household  purposes “in an unfair, deceptive or unreasonable manner.”    35.  940 Mass. Code Regs. 7.07(2) further provides that it is a violation of Mass.  Gen. Laws c. 93A to attempt to collect any debt by engaging in “[a]ny knowingly false  or misleading representation in any communication as to the character, extent or  amount of the debt.”    36.  940 Mass. Code Regs. 7.07(2) further provides that it is a violation of Mass.  Gen. Laws c. 93A to attempt to collect any debt by engaging in “[a]ny false, deceptive,  or misleading representation, communication, or means in connection with the  collection of any debt.”    37.  940 Mass. Code Regs. 3.16(4) further provides that a violation of the  FDCPA constitutes a violation of c. 93A.   38.  Radius pursued collection activities against Chapter 93A Class members  despite the fact that they had previously settled and paid their debts in full and did not  owe anything on the accounts on which Radius attempted to collect.   39.  To initiate said collection against class members, Radius falsely  represented the amount of the Chapter 93A Class members’ debt.   4.  Award the Chapter 93A Class costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees  pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws c. 93A §9;   40.  Therefore, Radius violated Mass. Gen. Laws c. 93A, § 2(a) by falsely  representing the amount of the Chapter 93A Class members’ debt in connection with  the collection of those alleged debts and by violating the FDCPA, as alleged below in  Count II.   41.  In addition, the above described actions violate Mass. Gen. Laws c. 93A, §  2(a) because they constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade  or commerce.   42.  Because Radius does not maintain a place of business or keep assets  within Massachusetts, a 30-day demand letter is not required as a prerequisite for  asserting a violation of c. 93A. Mass. Gen. Laws c. 93A, § 9(3).  43.  15 U.S.C. § 1692e provides that a debt collector may not use “any false,  deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of  any debt.”   44.  Section 1692e(2)(A) further provides that it is a violation to make a “false  representation of . . . the character, amount, or legal status of any debt.”   45.  Section 1692e(10) further provides that it is a violation to “use any false  representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.”    46.  Ms. Munroe is a “consumer” as that term is defined in section 1692a(3)  because she is a natural person allegedly obligated to pay the student loan debt Radius  sought to collect.   47.  Private student loans are “debts” as that term is defined in section  1692a(5) because they are obligations by a consumer, in this case Ms. Munroe and class  members, to pay money arising out of a transaction in which the money is used for a  personal, family, or household purpose, in this case higher education intended for  personal growth.    48.  Radius pursued collection activities against the FDCPA Class members  despite the fact that they had previously settled and paid their debts in full and owed  nothing on the accounts on which Radius attempted to collect.   49.  Therefore, Radius violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A) and 15 U.S.C. §  1692e(10)(A) by falsely representing the amount of the FDCPA Class members’ debt to  them in connection with the collection of their alleged debts.   5.  Find that Radius violated 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e and 1692f;   50.  In addition, the above described actions violate 15 U.S.C. § 1692e because  they constitute false, deceptive, or misleading representations or means to collect  alleged debt.  51.  15 U.S.C. § 1692f prohibits a debt collector from using any unfair or  unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.   52.  Section 1692f(1) further provides that it is a violation to collect any amount  “unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or  permitted by law.”   53.  Radius was not permitted to collect any amount on the FDCPA Class  members’ loan agreements because the debt balances that allegedly remained in the  accounts were settled and paid according to the terms of the settlement agreements and  payments made pursuant thereto.    54.  Radius delivered collection notices to the FDCPA Class members in an  attempt to collect alleged debts on accounts that had already been settled and paid.   55.  Therefore, Radius violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1) by attempting to collect on  debts where it was not expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or  permitted by law.   56.  In addition, the above described actions violate 15 U.S.C. § 1692f because  they are unfair and unconscionable means to collect allegedly defaulted student loan  debt.  57.  15 U.S.C. § 1681b(f) prohibits a “person” from using or obtaining a  consumer report without a permissible purpose.   58.  Radius is a “person” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(b)  because Radius is a “partnership, corporation, . . . or other entity.”   59.  Ms. Munroe and the FCRA Class members are “consumers” as that term  is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(c) because they are individuals.    6.  Enter judgment in favor of Ms. Munroe and the FDCPA Class and against  Radius for the (i) actual damages equal to all amounts improperly collected by Radius  within the applicable statutory period that have not yet been reimbursed; and (ii)  maximum amount of statutory damages provided under 15 U.S.C § 1692k;   60.  The report on Ms. Munroe obtained by Radius on January 5, 2020 is a  consumer report as that term is defined by FCRA section 1681a(d)(1) because it  included “information by a consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumer’s credit  worthiness.”   61.  Section 1681b(a)(3)(A) does not permit debt collectors like Radius to  obtain an individual’s consumer report in the furtherance of collection activity when the  individual does not owe the alleged debt that the collector seeks to collect.   62.  Radius was in possession of records from which it knew or could readily  have determined that Ms. Munroe and the other individuals whose consumer reports it  obtained had paid off the debt by settlement.   63.  Radius obtained a consumer report on Ms. Munroe and other FCRA Class  members in reckless disregard of the fact that the FCRA Class members did not owe a  debt to Radius or a creditor with whom Radius contracts for collection services.   64.  None of the permissible purposes to use or obtain a consumer report  described in section 1681b(a) permitted Radius to obtain Ms. Munroe’s or the consumer  report of the other FCRA Class members.   65.  Obtaining a consumer report without a permissible purpose constitutes an  invasion of a legally protected interest in the confidentiality of the consumer’s sensitive  personal information.   66.  Therefore, Radius willfully violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(f) by obtaining Ms.  Munroe’s and other FCRA Class members’ consumer reports without a permissible  purpose.  Prayer for Relief  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court:   7.  Award the FDCPA Class costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to  15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3);   8.  Find that Radius willfully violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(f);   9.  Enter judgment in favor of Ms. Munroe and the FCRA Class and against  Radius for (i) the maximum amount of statutory damages provided under 15 U.S.C. §  1681n(a)(1)(A); and (ii) maximum amount of punitive damages under 15 U.S.C. §  1681n(a)(2);   THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT, 15 U.S.C. § 1681b  IMPERMISSIBLY OBTAINING CONSUMER REPORTS   THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e  FALSE OR MISLEADING REPRESENTATIONS   THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT, 15 U.S.C. § 1692f  UNFAIR PRACTICES   THE MASSACHUSETTS CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,   Mass. Gen. Laws c. 93A, § 2(a)   UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE PRACTICES  