10. 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”): • All New York consumers who received a collection letter from Defendant attempting to collect an obligation owed to or allegedly owed to Synchrony Bank, that contains the alleged violations arising from Defendant’s violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692(g) (e), et seq. • The Class period begins one year to the filing of this Action.  12. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs numbered “1” through “11” herein with the same force and effect as if the same were set forth at length herein.  13. 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.  15. On or about September 1, 2016, Defendant sent Plaintiff a collection letter.  See Exhibit A.  16. 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).  17. The letter is a “communication” as defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(2).  18. Said September 1, 2016 Collection Letter provided that the alleged amount due was $1,733.00.  19. Said September 1, 2016 Collection Letter was the first letter sent out by Defendants.  20. Said September 1, 2016 Collection Letter further stated: “The total account balance as of the date of this letter is shown above.  Your account balance may increase because of interest or other charges, if so provided in your agreement with your creditor.”  21. Defendant was attempting to collect on Plaintiff’s purportedly overdue Synchrony Bank debt.  22. Defendants could have taken the steps necessary to bring its actions within compliance with the FDCPA, but neglected to do so and failed to adequately review its actions to ensure compliance with the law.  23. On information and belief, Defendants sent a written communication, in the form annexed hereto as Exhibit A to at least 50 natural persons in the state of New York within one year of the date of this Complaint. First Count  15 U.S.C. §1692g  Validation of Debts   24. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs numbered “1” through “23” herein with the same force and effect as if the same were set forth at length herein.  26. The written notice must contain the amount of the debt.  27. The written notice must contain the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed.  28. The written notice must contain 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.  29. The written notice must contain a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.  30. The written notice must contain a statement that, upon the consumer’s written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.  31. One such requirement is that the debt collector provide “the amount of debt.” 15 U.S.C. 1692(a)(1).  32. A debt collector has the obligation not just to convey the amount of debt, but to convey such clearly.  33. The letters both set forth a “Balance Due.”  35. The letters fail to include the “safe harbor” language concerning the accrual of interest  and/or fees as set forth in Jones v. Midland Funding, LLC, 755 F. Supp. 2d 393, 398 (D.  Conn. 2010), adhered to on reconsideration, No. 3:08-CV-802 RNC, 2012 WL 1204716  (D. Conn. Apr.11, 2012).   36. The letters state, “The total account balance as of the date of this letter is shown above.   Your account balance may increase because of interest or other charges, if so provided in  your agreement with your creditor.”   37. The letters fail to advise Plaintiffs that if Plaintiffs pay the balance “as of the date of the  letters,” an adjustment may be necessary after Defendant receives payment.   38. The letters fails to advise Plaintiffs that Defendant will inform Plaintiffs of the balance  difference before depositing payment.   39. The letters fail to advise Plaintiffs what portion of the balance “as of the date of this letter”  is principal.   40. The letters fail to advise Plaintiffs what portion of the balance “as of the date of this letter”  is interest.   41. The letters fail to advise Plaintiffs what portion of the balance “as of the date of this letter”  is late fees.   42. The letters fail to advise Plaintiffs of the interest rate.   43. The letters fail to advise Plaintiffs of the amount of potential late fees.   45. The letters fail to advise Plaintiffs the amount of money the balance “as of the date of this  letter” will increase per week.   46. The letters fail to advise Plaintiffs the amount of money the balance “as of the date of this  letter” will increase per month.   47. The letters fail to advise Plaintiffs the amount of money the balance “as of the date of this  letter” will increase in any measurable period.   48. The letters, because of the aforementioned failures, would render the least sophisticated  consumer unable to determine the amount of his or her debt.   49. Because Defendant state the balance “as of the date of this letter” “may” increase, the least  sophisticated consumer could also reasonably believe that the debt could be satisfied by  remitting the balance at any time after the receipt of the letter.   50. Because Defendant state the balance “as of the date of this letter” “may” increase, the least  sophisticated consumer could also reasonably believe that the balance was accurate only  on the date of the letter because of the continued accumulation of interest and/or late fees.   51. If the interest is continuing to accrue, the least sophisticated consumer would not know  how to satisfy the debt because the letter fails to indicate the applicable interest rate, or  date of accrual.   53. Furthermore, no additional fees or interest is currently accruing on this account.   54. For these reasons, Defendant failed to clearly state the amount of the debts.   55. For these reasons, Defendant failed to unambiguously state the amount of the debts.   56. For these reasons, the letters would likely make the least sophisticated consumer uncertain  as to the amount of the debt.   57. For these reasons, the letters would likely make the least sophisticated consumer confused  as to the amount of the debt.   58. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g as it failed to clearly, explicitly and unambiguously  convey the amount of debt.  Second Count  15 U.S.C. §1692e et seq.  False or Misleading Representations    59. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs  numbered “1” through “57” herein with the same force and effect as if the same were set  forth at length herein.   60. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e prohibits a debt collector from using any false, deceptive, or misleading  representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.   61. While § 1692e specifically prohibits certain practices, the list is non-exhaustive, and does  not preclude a claim of falsity or deception based on non-enumerated practice.   62. A collection letter is also deceptive under 15 U.S.C. § 1692e if it is reasonably susceptible  to an inaccurate reading by the least sophisticated consumer.   64. As previously alleged, the least sophisticated consumer could also reasonably read the  letters to mean that the balance “as of the date of the letter” was dynamic due to the  continued accumulation of interest.   65. As previously alleged, the least sophisticated consumer could also reasonably read the  letters to mean that the balance “as of the date of the letter” was dynamic due to the  continued accumulation of late fees.   66. As previously alleged, the least sophisticated consumer could also reasonably read the  letter to mean that the account balance may increase because of interest or other charges,  when there is no additional interest or other charges being levied on the account.    67. Because the letters are susceptible to an inaccurate reading by the least sophisticated  consumer, they are deceptive under 15 U.S.C. § 1692e.   68. Because the letters can reasonably be read by the least sophisticated consumer to have two  or more meanings, one of which is inaccurate, as described, they are deceptive under 15  U.S.C. § 1692e.   69. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e by using a false, deceptive and misleading  representation in its attempt to collect a debt. 