11.  Numerous courts around the country have adopted the Miller safe harbor language  to prevent this violation from continuing to occur, but the Defendant did not provide this  safe harbor language within any of its letters. See Miller v. McCalla, Raymer, Padrick,  Cobb, Nichols, & Clark, L.L.C., 214 F.3d 872 (7th Cir. 2000).   12.  In addition, while the dunning letter did indicate that the communication was from  a debt collector for the purpose of collecting a debt, it failed to inform Plaintiff of her  right to dispute the validity of the debt within 30 days.   13.  Accordingly, Defendant’s letter is false, deceptive, and misleading in violation of  the FDCPA.   14.  Plaintiff brings this as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf of  herself and all others similarly situated who have received similar debt collection notices  and/or communications from Defendant which, as alleged herein, are in violation of the  33.  Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in the above paragraphs and incorporates  them as if specifically set forth at length herein.   34.  Defendant’s collection letter failed to properly state the current balance of the debt  and failed to adequately inform Plaintiff about interest accruing and how payment of the  current balance would not satisfy the debt.  Accordingly, Defendant’s collection letter  violated 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 e, e(2), e(10), and g(a)(1).     6.  On a date better known by Defendant, Plaintiff incurred an obligation for rent on  her living quarters.      7.  Rent is considered a “debt” as that term is used and defined under the FDCPA.    8.  In attempt to collect said debt, Defendant sent Plaintiff an initial dunning letter on  December 20, 2016 seeking to collect said debt. Exhibit A.   9.  At one location in the letter, Defendant indicated they were seeking a balance of  $3,166.14. Further in the letter, Defendant indicated it was seeking a “judgment balance”  in the amount of $3,166.14 plus accruing interest. Stating the balance as one amount and  later stating a different (higher) amount is contradictory and confusing to the consumer as  to what amount is properly owing.   The Class   VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT  15 U.S.C. §1692 et seq.  